Fundamental argument against the (death) penalty - November 2019
Introduction
The idea, which I expose here, is that the penal (punishment) is absurd, illegitimate and even illegal, since we have all been forced to exist; and therefore we are innocent of the acts that we could not have committed without this existence imposed by others (our parents with social co-responsibility).
If the law gives the authorization to procreate explicitly or implicitly, then it cannot reproach their acts to the persons whose existence it has imposed, because without this authorization they would not have existed and their imperfections in a society managed and controlled by laws, therefore themselves imperfect (society and laws), and recognized as such by the society by this very existence.
Humanity must get rid of criminal justice and all forms of punishment, because this is not Justice. A true humanistic justice must make sure that every person brought into the world for social service lives in well-being, otherwise it is useless to launch its manufacture, it is useless to impose its existence.
Two procreators and their associates, not knowing how to manufacture a person perfectly nor how to educate him perfectly, cannot impute to the manufactured person his imperfect actions in an imperfect society, even if they would like to impute to him his existence by who knows what artifice.
The society cannot reproach its interactions with the world to a person who did not want to exist, who did not ask to interact, and who will thus have to do it in spite of himself.
We are elements of the universe, which exists at all times and outside of time. The universe is perpetual and without responsibility to exist, its mechanisms are "aresponsible "*. It is the same for us who have been induced by this universe without responsibility. Responsibility cannot be born from aresponsibility. Since the whole is aresponsible, the content (us) is also aresponsible, because there is no change of value, but only change of functionality.
Presentation
The Law does not precede the Power
It is conceived by the Power
It is therefore illegal.
This text does not speak about the protection of the society against the asocial or antisocial persons, but about punishment, penal code, criminal justice, legislation on punishment, and the duty to do without it. This text also does not speak about "victims" and how society should treat them, this is a very important subject that should be addressed separately. This subject of victims has nothing to do with criminal law. And should even be treated before the criminal one since the first victims are the result of procreation, and thus of existence itself.
[Are the parents, who make or take the risk of making disabled children (we all are), criminally responsible? Why shouldn't they be, in a system (the current one) where the one who acts is supposed to be responsible for the consequences of his actions].
First, the "punitive" should be removed, and everything that follows from it should unwind like a ball of yarn.
With what to replace the punitive? Answer: with education. We must not treat, we must prevent the disease. We must therefore act upstream, at the source. The source is procreation.
Since we need a lever to change mentalities, the best is judicial. In the short or long term, criminal justice must disappear. It must recognize the injustice with which it treats what it calls the "litigants". No one asked to be a defendant before existing.
People will go through the judges and the Constitutional Council to change the aberrant behavior of the rulers and of certain men who have appropriated power through money.
[To own money is to own people's work, therefore it is to own people. It is hypocritical, or it is denial, to refuse to admit that to own people's work is to own the people who do that work. It is hypocritical to refuse to admit that we are all forced to work to survive by doing work chosen by others since we did not ask to exist in this world. No one should own people. What is Justice waiting for to act against this slavery].
You want to change the world. Close your prisons. It is illegal to punish. Stop locking up those you have imperfectly manufactured and imperfectly educated and thrown into your imperfect societies, they did not ask to exist, just like you. That would be a good place to start. Judges and the Constitutional Council should understand the notions of "aresponsibility" and "innocence to exist". This fundamental action will require you to rethink the education of your children.
You have to talk about the innocence of existing as you talk about heliocentrism and evolution. It is an absolute truth of Nature, everyone must know it like any essential truth.
No one is responsible for his physical (and therefore intellectual) imperfections at birth and for his future imperfections which result from it. No one is responsible for his educational imperfections and the behavioral imperfections that result from them. Nobody is responsible for the imperfections of the society in which he was incorporated without his agreement. No one is responsible for not being perfectly adjusted to the society and its rules. Nobody is perfect, because perfection does not exist.
But above all, no one has asked to exist whether it is perfect or imperfect, in this imperfect world or in another, perfect or not.
What right do we have to create a person when we claim to be above the simple animal, when we claim to be intelligent, sensitive, conscious? An animal does not ask itself questions, a human being must ask himself, especially on the essential questions. (An eternal educational phrase that all children in the world have heard a thousand times: "think before you act"). And if there is a capital question, in the true sense of the word, it is indeed that of imposing on a person to exist. So, what right do we have to punish the one who did not ask to exist, and especially how did the human being come to punish the one he fabicates imperfect? Is it not aberrant to punish the thing or the being that one makes?
Is it not absurd to give him physical or intellectual defects, even involuntarily, and to punish him for these induced behavioral errors?
If you don't know how to educate, learn or ask the specialists for help. If the specialists don't know, let them fill in the gaps. Education is behavioral, i.e. we learn by example. Punishment is not a good example and therefore is not good education. Psychological torture (loneliness and deprivation of freedom) is not a good example and is therefore not good education. Forcible confinement (prison) is not a good example and is therefore not good education.
[The death penalty does not punish the dead, because it does not teach the one who no longer exists; it is therefore not a punishment. Death row is only a long torture without direct educational reason for the person who is not supposed to return to society; it is therefore meaningless; and it is not Justice since the exemplarity of the punishment is not fairness].
Education is paramount. Knowledge is paramount. Our actions depend on what we are and what we know (that we did not ask for). Ask yourself why you have never thought about your own constraint of existence, and the innocence of all your actions that follows from it. And you should understand how a rational, rationalist education could change each individual and thus the world. We function retroactively and this explains a lot without resorting to absurd notions.
The truth must always be told to everyone without exception and it cannot be blocked unless one is a dictator or enjoys dictatorship. The innocence of our actions is one of them, I say it. The criminal law is absurd, I say. Stop punishing, it is absurd.
The right to punish is the first question, because if there is only the power to punish, there is no ethics in this right. The actual responsibility of people is the second question, because if everything that exists is without responsibility, then punishment has no meaning.
There is our social world based on our imaginary (in the process of being corrected), and the world as it really is and therefore correlated as much as possible with scientific descriptions. We live in a world that has imagined the responsibility of people, and we must try to reach the real natural world where responsibility does not exist. The real world is without responsibility while we live in the imaginary world with responsibility. Obviously, it can't stick. Our societies can't get away with it, continuing like this. There is too much of a gap between reality and imagination. The verbal description of the world and its true nature must be as accurate as possible. There must be as perfect a correspondence as possible between the verbal description and the facts, objects and events, described.
Responsibility is a baseless invention. Free will is a baseless invention.
Fundamental argument against criminal law
This fundamental argument against all penalties is the constraint of existence. Now this constraint which is made to us to exist makes us innocent of our acts. Why?
Because what has been imposed on us cannot be blamed on us, and therefore everything that follows from it, i.e. our actions in the world. We could not do anything good or bad without having been fabricated, without existing!
Everything has been imposed on us, the existence itself, therefore our physical and intellectual components, the culture that impregnates our brains, as well as our associates, and the very violent world in which we are inserted. Who would choose such an existence, infinitely risky before its conception, if it absolutely had to exist, if it could choose?
We are innocent of our hormones, of the glands that make them, of the muscles that use them and the bones that underlie them, of the brain that is supposed to control everything, but that only controls by feedback our gestures and our acts if the making is correct and the learning adequate, and of the acts made possible, that our organs generate, in the world in which we have been installed without our agreement.
We did not ask to exist and exist as we are, and neither does the universe. We are, like a bottle, innocent of the container and the content. We are mobile and become autonomous after learning, but this is no different from the autonomy of a bird or a cat. We didn't ask to exist, neither the autonomy nor the mobility, and to have to protect and feed perpetually this mobility. We did not ask for the violence inherent in our physical abilities.
We did not ask for the place of our settlement, the type of life, the culture, the society and its innumerable artificial rules. It was all imposed on us, and what was imposed on us cannot be blamed on us.
We did not ask to have any power over anyone or anything.
Giving the fundamental argument against criminal justice, against all punishments whatsoever, the remedy for the associated elements should follow, such as the death penalty in particular, wars, violence and all the unnecessary social waste. Why do males fight? Because they always have since animals are bisexual. Why do humans fight again and again and again? Because they have less control over their aggressiveness (which varies from person to person depending on hormones and physical potential). Aggression dominates the controller instead of the other way around. Humans have not learned (at home and at school) the control function with enough efficiency. This control function must be reinforced. It is an imperative social duty.
We all know that too much testosterone can drive you crazy. No one asked to have testosterone. No one asked to possess the need to control their aggression.
If men or women become criminals, it is first because they exist. But they exist without having asked for it. And they become criminals because crimes were invented before they existed. Before making me and inserting me into your society, which is apparently an equal partnership (I doubt it very much), did you ask me if I accepted your rules?
But why not manufacture a person without the possibility of committing crimes? Why not fabricate a person without the possibility of being a victim? If you don't, is the person you made responsible for your making and raising, and for your imperfect world according to your invented rules without their participation?
We are innocent of our actions, simply because we did not ask to act or interact. Our makers (parents) and complicit society forced it upon us. We were given the fait accompli of existing by others who suffered the same fate before us, and come what may!
Existential remarks
If one life is absurd, then 8 billion lives are 8 billion times more absurd.
Now:
What is the use of my existence before I exist? Answer: nothing, since I did not exist before I was made. What is the use of my existence after having existed ? Answer: to nothing, since I would no longer exist (→ my experience of being alive will not brighten my bones or the smoke of my cremation). To whom does my existence serve? To those who fabricated me and their accomplices (society).
While I exist, of course I try to live as best I can like any animal (are we still basic animals?). But when they made me could they assure that I would have a good life, good health, longevity, an exciting life in an exciting world? Answer: no, of course not. So how and why did they dare to start making me? Answer: it seems that this is not their problem. It's just a customary animal act that everyone has been doing since the first cell a few billion years ago. It serves no purpose, but since the universe (says) that the system must be perpetuated, then we stupidly obey the great Machine...
But why on earth obey a machine?
The universe is only a big machine which turns without reason, which exists without reason. The universe functions indefinitely, perpetually, and it is indifferent to the suffering that its mechanisms induce. We don't have to obey a stupid machine that has no beginning or end, no cause or reason.
And this has many implications too...
First of all, if the universe machine made us with the suffering function, why accept it, and especially why impose it to your child when you don't agree with it yourself? Why launch the fabrication of a child who will suffer and die for sure?
And why add the notion of criminal justice, to those horrible and useless universal punishments that are suffering and death?
Build perfect beings, educate them perfectly, and welcome them, at least, with a permanent and general kindness, otherwise why manufacture them?
Natural justice
The artificial is included in the natural
The truth of description arranges the human world, because it tries to fit the facts as well as possible. That is why we need to accept the demonstrations of scientists about who we are and the universe.
Truth* is not democratic, demagogic or populist, it is argued. The truth is not the result of an election, or of a petition.
With Cesare Beccaria in the 18th century, the notion of crimes and punishments was posed a little more "humanely". Torture as an adjunct to the penal system began to challenge humanists, but they had not yet asked the right questions about themselves. And Michel Foucault in the 20th century in his book "Surveiller et punir" never mentions certain existential notions that are nevertheless crucial. Darwin between two was going to expose his ideas on evolution a century after Beccaria and a century before Foucault. Although Darwin revealed evolution to humans, they do not seem to have understood its social implications.
I would like humanity to think of a different way of seeing itself. Not just any way, the real way. The one that should have been born with Lucretius, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Crick and Watson, and many others who revealed to us part of the universe and our true human nature and who put down our beliefs. God is dead, and in dying he did not make us responsible for our existence. Our justice and our human relationships are still based on the old beliefs. Belief is a mental block that only brings absurd confrontations since we are innocent of existing. We must wake up and come to reality.
Natural Justice is a justice that takes into account the evolution of man, his phylogenesis from the initial cells, his origin from mechanisms induced by the universe (and a Justice that drops beliefs).
A natural Justice is a Justice that admits the true mechanisms of life, the true mechanisms of the human person.
Animals have a culture. This culture from which we come from has evolved over millions of years starting and lasting as soon as the nervous system was sophisticated enough to memorize a few seconds of the behavior and the environment, which made it possible to transmit its behavior to its offspring or to its neighbors. Culture is a system that has evolved without discontinuity. Cultural continuity is important in understanding our current shortcomings.
When language appeared, behavioral routines and ancient customs existed in memory. And because language allows for almost infinite complexity of thought as it is enriched, we began to try to explain phenomena beyond our understanding.
We did not have enough elements and mental functions to correctly process our impressions of our environment.
Animals, which we were and still are and always will be, have come to invent notions that make no sense in the absolute. Like the notion of responsibility, when the universe and everything in it is "aresponsible" to exist (without responsibility). That of free will, whereas we are an arrangement of mechanisms of the universe, that we are the result of it and that we cannot do anything about it ("Free will is impossible, it cannot be induced from a deterministic mechanical universe"). As well as "the mental function of belief" which slows down our cultural evolution by blocking reason on ancient subjects cogitated by our ancestors (dead for thousands of years). Belief is a mental illness related to obsession, but much more aggressive.
And because of these beliefs imagined a long time ago, we got stuck on untruths that we still use today to torture, lock up, hurt or kill people fabricated and educated by ourselves, their parents and associates, when we reproach them for their anti-social acts.
(Did anyone ask to participate in society before they were forced into existence? Did anyone sign any social contract before being manufactured?)
The recognition of our animal origin, which is scientifically argued, therefore a descriptive truth, must make us review our Justice, which cannot be penal, but educational. Justice can continue to live, but as an arbitrator. And if we could reach this intelligence that we are looking for (without enthusiasm), perhaps the police and the military could be reconverted into educators?
There is a knowledge to be gained from the many beliefs throughout the world and all times, and that is that we can act stupidly or intelligently from mere ideas. Ideas have weight on behavior. Our ideas had better be good, actions will follow.
Equity and Human Rights
"If my cup won’t hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart,
wouldn’t you be mean not to let me have my little
half measure full ?" (Sojourner Truth - 1851)
Equity is the foundation of human rights.
When your parents planned to bring you into the world, they dreamed of Superman or Wonder Woman. But the probability that you would simply be a human with an IQ over 100 was 50%, and that you would have a PQ (Physical Quotient) over 100 was also 50%. Same for EQ (Emotional Quotient), SQ (Sexual Quotient), CQ (Cultural Quotient).
This mathematically gave you about a 3% chance of having all these quotients above 100.
They certainly didn't want you to be born physically or intellectually handicapped, but the risk was very high. So they played the lottery of life on your existence or rather Russian roulette or even the fatal slide (take your pick). But once a suffering being is made, how do you undo the suffering?
If "you" do not want to be fair, especially with me or with the rest of the world, that means, the best defense being offense, that I must eliminate you as quickly as possible, for your existence is a constant threat. I must infer from your opposition to fairness that you unilaterally grant yourself the right to commit crimes against me or one of mine. But if you admit that, you admit it for your own children, and all the members of your dynasty, who will have every interest in eliminating you as soon as they no longer need you; just one is enough.
Hence the laws against parricide enacted by parents while their children did not sign these laws although they were directly concerned. We understand why parents want to protect themselves. But we understand less why the love they should have for their child, and which they should receive in return, led them to make such laws. Why protect oneself from a possible parricide if one has nothing to blame? Why would a child kill the one he loves if there is no reason behind the killing? The laws against patricide are a consequence of our animality.
These are animal principles, those used by evolution, the law of the strongest. But the law of the strongest is not the law of the smartest, and even less a law emanating from intelligence. Nature is only a machine that is not interested in the suffering of the things it makes, to the point of inducing suffering as a principle of self-repair.
This system of functioning, by elimination of the problem and the law of retaliation, is the principle of current Justice.
If justice is to exist, it must serve to establish and control fairness, for it can only be justified by this notion. The notion of equity must serve as the basis for our human relationships. Without equity there can be no wise humanity. This equity must be an equity in well-being, because equity in unhappiness and in war is absurd (happiness is unattainable without well-being).
But there is no one responsible. We are all "aresponsible". Rights and Laws must be based on fairness in welfare and in responsibility, otherwise don't have children.
The innocence of existing
When human rights were devised and modified, they did not take into account the constraint we all have to exist. To be innocent of existing means that we are innocent of being what we are, innocent of inhabiting the world that has been imposed upon us, and therefore innocent of all our actions in our lifetime.
Our actions depend on the existence of our body and our intellect, that is to say on all our physical and mental potentials unwanted and not validated before our existence by ourselves (obviously), as well as on the world, of the place of the world and the culture in which we exist without prior agreement (obviously). We are not autogenous, and we are not becoming autogenous.
Justice seems to consider that individuals are autogenous; they are manufactured themselves and therefore responsible. No, people were initiated by other people (their parents), but all of a sudden they become responsible for existing. Responsible for being what they are, responsible for their construction imperfections (when it is not visible) and responsible for their education. They have, as it were, voluntarily self-generated intellectually, despite all human differences, around the age of twelve or eighteen, and this is the same for everyone, just a few exceptions according to the psychology experts.
Individuals, who did not ask to exist (whatever the alleged intelligence which is lent to them, especially imposed, and the alleged marvelous world in which they are installed without their will), have autogenerated their responsibility. Astonishing!
I cannot be blamed for having done what I did, because if I had not been put in the conditions to do it I would not have been able to do it, and without existence I would not have been able to do anything either good (act supposedly good by the society) or bad (act supposedly bad by the society). If my hand doesn't exist, it can't squeeze an object, hold a dagger, pull a trigger, press a button. If I do not exist, I cannot perform the act that I am accused of. If I commit an act, it is because I have been put in the conditions to carry it out. (Why have the potential to be a criminal and the potential to be a victim been manufactured? If the maker of the criminal or/and the victim is not responsible, who is?)
The innocence of existing is linked to the constraint which is made to us to exist without our consent and in a world not more consented. We are presented with the fait accompli of existing and we never signed a social or natal contract before existing (obviously). A social or natal contract signed after our birth is worthless since it concerns the launching of our making. A social contract signed by our parents for us is worthless (we do not inherit the social contract that precedes our existence). A contract does not impose itself. Without this contract, which is necessary for a healthy and equitable association, society is criminally constituted. (In a society criminally constituted on its own terms, its laws are worthless.)
We are not in an equitable society, but in a dictatorship, whose origin is animal, which hypocritically tries to hide and make forget this origin.
The innocence of existing is also linked to the construction and the unchosen architecture of our physical and mental body (we are neither god, nor superman, nor eagle, nor lion, nor slug, nor ladybug). The manufacturers and their associates know all the hazards of making an existence. By initiating the making, they are therefore, according to their own code of responsibility, responsible for the results of the making and for the life as a whole of the made person. The launching of the manufacture is no longer that of an experimental prototype. One hundred billion humans having existed is enough of an experimental basis.
The normality and the naturalness of our manufacture are not valid arguments for the launching of our manufacture, because no being assuming to be intelligent can admit the orders of Nature which is only a mechanism, a machine. Besides, no order can enjoin a human being to procreate. Only animals and idiots act without thinking.
The innocence of existing is also linked to the fact that the memory is a white book at the time of construction and a black box throughout life. Parents and educators pour into it what they want without mastering the learning of what happens in this brain where the connections are established according to the natural neuronal mechanisms, the general structure of the brain, and the particularities of each one, their food, the manufacturing defects, and the hazards of functioning.
The innocence of existing is also linked to the fact that everything that exists is "aresponsible" (without responsibility), starting with the universe and all that it contains, therefore us. The responsibility cannot be born from the aresponsibility of the mechanisms that constitute us.
The innocence of existing is also linked to the fact that free will does not exist. We are not of divine origin and composed of functionalities that a divine being prevents us from understanding. The free will cannot be born from the initial constraint of existence and from the "aresponsibility" of the mechanisms of the universe. Its existence has never been demonstrated although it is easy to give the order of research to scientists. Justice is failing in its duty of truth in this matter. The demonstration of its impossibility has been made by myself and others. Its existence would not change the fact that we have been forced to exist, and to be as we are without having desired it (there are always physical and mental imperfections).
The existence of free will would not negate the innocence to exist. (A demonstration of the existence of free will must be simple, absolute, perfect, undeniable, otherwise doubt benefits the accused).
The innocence of existing is linked to the fact that life is an order given to us. An executed order (good or bad) is under the responsibility of the order giver when the execution was not explicitly accepted, or when the acceptance is the result of a mental manipulation, but we are born white book, all that is in our brain comes from the life which was imposed to us thus of the order givers who knew the implications on the manufactured being (should know them). The existence is a constant manipulation that begins with the parental impregnation.
The average culture that is currently contained in a human brain has evolved from the first multicellular animals possessing a nervous system capable of memorizing some information; we are not responsible for it nor for the evolutionary system (there is never a break in an evolution).
Consequences: We are all in the same boat. But the human world, our society and other societies must not be seen in a bad light, but in a good light. The notion of the innocence of existing must pull us up. We must all be aware of this. The notion of guilt of people is absurd and obsolete. The notion of punishment, the penalty must be removed from the human mentality. The guilt you feel when you do something stupid or bad, you can and must get rid of it; your child is innocent so are you and your parents, so are your neighbors and all humanity. Innocence is transmitted, but not guilt. Guilt is a misinterpretation of human conduct.
It is not a matter of no longer making laws, it is simply a matter of no longer "punishing". It is necessary to admit and recognize that people are not in society by self-acceptance, that they are not constituted physically and intellectually by self-genesis, they are imperfectly fabricated and imperfectly educated by members of an imperfect society for a personal and/or social purpose that cannot be that of the person made to serve (no matter what service he will render to his parents and to society).
The laws, if any, must serve the purpose of living in society, and learning from it, since we are born virgin of information and cultural functions.
Your child is a person. From the moment of his birth, he no longer belongs to you, because no one belongs to anyone. But when you conceive him, you know that you are making a person whom you are sending for your personal service on the fatal slide, the torments of life and the inescapable death, and that without utility for him before you launch his making, but useful only for you.
We are all born of a functional iniquity, our parents made us without our consent. But just because our parents are in the same case as us does not change this "normal" (animal) inequity into something fair and ethical. When normality is not fair, our laws forbid it in many cases, such as murder, rape, theft of territories or objects. Since procreation is not ethical, why not, at the very least, think about a more amiable way of introducing and welcoming people into the living system? Can our humanity take this step?
The principle of the innocence to exist is: "No one can be held responsible for existing or for his actions in the course of his existence, when he has not asked to exist, and has no more asked for the form of his existence than for the place of his existence." → this is always the case; no mortal or immortal entity can derogate from this law.
Individual and society
The notion of constraint of existence and thus of innocence to exist is, I think, easily understandable for the individual who procreates. This procreator should know that his child is innocent of his acts since he has manufactured him imperfectly and educated him imperfectly. I can't imagine anyone not understanding this. Yet, how many parents punish their children, not simply by using punishment as an educational system, but because they are fed up with the child not understanding?
Aren't you the manufacturer who is responsible for your child's physical and intellectual abilities? Aren't you the one responsible for what goes into the child's brain, a brain that you have built? Is it not you who manufactured all the mechanisms that manage your child's knowledge and actions?
And don't blame Nature, she is only a machine, and therefore don't blame the nature of your child, since you know in advance all the ins and outs of procreation. I remind you, the child did not ask to exist for your service. If you don't know how to deal with it, don't blame it for your incompetence. He/She is innocent to exist and to be what She/He is.
But why should it be true for the other person's child? Why should it be true for a society?
The parents launch the fabrication of an existence knowing in advance all the problems without exception that it will cause to the procreated person. If they don't know them all, society does, and it agrees to this procreation launch according to the goodwill of the two future parents. The parents and the society cannot hide behind the vagaries of Nature to say that they did not foresee the innumerable problems that their child will encounter. All possible outcomes of procreation are known. It is as if the model of child they wanted was on display in a store, but they had only the draw as a choice (from best to worst) for their offspring.
The society gives its associates permission to procreate. It is an implicit agreement. It is in fact an authorization for each of the partners to procreate without having to explicitly ask the partnership. People are brought into the world, that is to say, made with the tacit agreement of the partnership. The society is responsible for their existence. Each member of the society is in the same case. Everyone is presented with the fait accompli of existing. Nobody is responsible for existing. No one is responsible for his physical and intellectual qualities and defects. The society knows all these details. The society accepts in advance any physical or intellectual defect of manufacture since it knows all the hazards of manufacture and authorizes them until the most terrible, the most abominable.
The society, if it claims that responsibility exists, is responsible for the same responsibility towards its associates that it forces to exist whatever their qualities and especially defects, because it is the defects of the individuals that will disturb it. Individuals whose "manufacture" it has authorized and who have not given their agreement to exist (obviously since it is a total manufacture). It is the manufacture which gives life. The couples launch the manufacture by copulation or medically. The manufacture is automatic and natural. It may be natural, but since the copulation is voluntary, the responsibility remains with the copulators who are supposed to be free and voluntary, and especially knowing all the hazards of the fabrication (including the possible death of the procreator or the acquisition of a more or less serious pathology).
All this is known. One hundred billion humans have existed. Eight-billion humans live together today. We have the experience. Medicine is very advanced, it knows all this. The WHO refers to all the problems of procreation. Nothing is hidden. Society knows. If responsibility exists according to its own philosophical references, then society, which allows procreation for its own benefit, but not for the benefit of those it manufactures, is responsible for individuals, for their health and their intellect, and therefore for their good or bad social integration. It is the poorly integrated who concern us. They are in a garden of brambles and thorns that they did not ask for, just like their existence. They are not responsible for what they are and what they do.
This implies that society can be excused for being stupid. But since each of us functions retroactively, this means that it can correct itself. The punishment is absurd and unnecessary. All it has to do is admit it.
A society is a group of associates. The French Constitution uses the term " society " or " social " about thirty times, and the word is mentioned twice in the Human Rights. So we are indeed partners. This means that what each associate does is in accordance with the kind of implicit or written contract that the members of the association have with each other, provided that it is not explicitly prohibited. Yet procreation is not only permitted, but it is the only way for the partnership to continue. This means that whatever the result of procreation is, it is accepted by society.
Moreover, society has made schooling compulsory, which makes each associate bound to society by education. Society has therefore taken charge of the education of its members and is totally responsible for it. For whoever arbitrarily intervenes in an action, even in part, is responsible for the entire action. If procreation were murder, the members would be accomplices (and for me procreation is indeed a crime in the social sense of the term). In the case of procreation, we can say that each member is co-responsible for the making and nurturing of each other simply by implicit acceptance of their procreation.
The principle of equity makes each responsible for all, and all for each. But we are responsible without being guilty. Responsible in the sense that it designates the initial cause. And no one is penalized since we are all in the same situation.
I have doubts about the notion of society that binds us, because a society is an association of people who cooperate; but we do not cooperate, we are all competitors.
For society considered as an organism, we are individually nothing but stopgaps. We serve to replace the dead. And this is how the rulers consider us, otherwise they would take care of all of us individually, we would all be equal in treatment, in wealth, in potentiality, in health, in longevity, in well-being, etc. People don't have to earn their equality because it has been imposed on them. They do not have to seek favors from society. They don't have to suck up to it to get the minimum welfare.
When society punishes one of its members, does it not see that it is punishing the result of its own making and education. (Society has the keys to the store.) The result being the person it punishes? Is it profitable to close one's eyes and not see that this person is the result of social acts, i.e. procreation by two of its members and education by the society which is itself imperfect?
It is only a matter of looking for the problem and trying to find the solution. Since we function in a retroactive way, the solution is in the understanding and in the collective education. What we learn changes us.
[Rather than punish, ask the person found "guilty" how he or she wants to solve the problem that his or her behavior has partly created. Do they want to return to society, or do they want to be excluded from it? Then, different methods of reintegration or exclusion must be proposed, depending on what needs to be corrected. Recidivism is a slightly different problem, because it implies that reintegration has not worked properly. And more importantly, society needs to look for the mistake it made with that person].
But it is not for me to give the solution to the recognition of innocence to exist. It should be easy to find a few thousand competent people.
Conclusion
Whatever the social form that will bind humans together in the future, even if this association is the most gentle, the most kind, the most equitable, the most egalitarian possible, there will always remain the ethical problem underlying the formation of this society, which is the incorporation without their prior agreement of people who are manufactured without control, randomly, and introduced to populate society continuously to fill in the mortality.
It is a servitude, a risk-taking, a condemnation to suffer and die to serve the ideas of the existing (ideas which are not necessarily those of the new entrants in spite of their impregnation of the social culture from birth). And this is neither ethical, nor fair, nor kind, nor gentle.
I don't accept that I have been fabricated to serve and that I should be made to feel guilty for what I am or what I have done when I am neither responsible for existing nor for being responsible for my faculties nor for being responsible for the world that surrounds me and shapes me, it is absurd.
We exist without having asked for it. We should be considered by all our fellow human beings, and other intelligences, as guests in the world.
I want to be considered as a guest and not as a slave, otherwise it is useless to encumber the planet with a being who will not like it; your planet becoming a real garbage can filled with garbage slaves. (Don't forget that making a handicapped person from birth, or not, is a huge crime).
If the flapping of a butterfly's wing can cause a stir on the other side of the planet, then this argument against criminal law should be enough to bring about profound changes in our social and individual behavior. It is therefore enough not to keep this idea to yourself, it is only utopian if you think it is so, otherwise by spreading it, it gains weight and takes flight.
Context sentences
1. "If one life is absurd, then 8 billion lives are 8 billion times more absurd." »
2. "What use is my existence to me before I exist?" Answer: Nothing, since I didn't exist before I was made. What use is my existence to me after I exist? Answer: nothing, since I would no longer exist. »
3. “One cannot blame his interactions with the world on a person who did not ask to exist, therefore to interact. »
4. "Procreation only serves those who already exist, no one controls this procreation nor the path that the procreated person will follow, once you have generated suffering how do you undo it, only insensitive and unintelligent animals procreate under these conditions."
5. "A person who manufactures a child accepts the world as it is and therefore cannot show social disapproval of the state of the world, except to claim that he has been cheated and admit his own stupidity."
6. "It is natural to have children, but it is a power, not a right. Crime is natural, as well as rape, they too are powers, but they are forbidden."
7. "If you push a person down a slide, you are legally responsible for what might happen to him; but if you violently throw a person, your child, down the fatal slide of existence, justice lets it happen and probably approves. Why?"
8. "Our behavior depends on our knowledge, and when our knowledge is wrong our behavior is wrong. Therefore, the truth must be spread, whatever it may be, to all."
9. "Truth is not democratic, demagogic or populist, it is based on arguments. Truth is not the result of an election, or a petition."
10. "Any form of mental manipulation contradicts free will, starting with education in a virgin brain at birth, apprenticeship, dialogue between two or more people, propaganda, advertising, hypnosis, fake news (including various religions), etc.,"
11. "If you are incompetent in making and educating a human being, you have the possibility to stop making them. Now we are all incompetent, because a sensitive and conscious human being demands perfection."
12. "The artificial is included in the natural. This means, that the anthill is the artificial of an ant, but is natural, that the termite mound is the artificial of the termite, but is natural, and in the same way every idea, every act, and every tool of mankind is the artificial of the human, but is natural."
13. "The difference between natural and artificial selection is therefore not very great since the artificial is included in the natural."
14. "No one is obliged to obey the orders of a machine, therefore of Nature and the universe."
15. "If the judge himself does not feel responsible for the bad education of his own child by judging him, who can be?"
16. "Civil servant scientists are at the orders of the state. Professional scientists are at the orders of their companies. What scientists inform us of the truths they discover without compulsion from their superiors? Which scientists are not censored?"
17. "Free will has never been scientifically demonstrated, yet doubt about its existence benefits the accused. Which lawyer has used this indisputable argument to keep his client out of jail?"
18. "The Whole is not superior to the part, it is different from the part. The notion of superiority is a value judgment. For example, a set of atoms, a molecule is not superior to the atom, it simply has different functionality."
19. "When the criminal serves to educate someone other than the accused, it is not justice."
20. " No one has the right to punish anyone other than himself."
21. "I assume that an autonomous car will not be responsible for the accidents it causes, and that if the manufacturer is incompetent his license will be taken away!"
22. "The universe is deterministic, free will is a technical impossibility, but even if free will were possible, the constraint of existence makes us innocent of our actions."
23. "A person in misery is a victim that the justice system should be concerned about before anything else. Ill-being should be enough to bring charges against his procreators and their associates."
24. "If you don't have an IQ of 1000 and a PQ (Physical Quotient) of 1000, then ask to be compensated, because they are due to you."
25. " Free will is impossible, it cannot be induced from a deterministic mechanical universe "
26. " The idea of a non-earthly paradise implies the admitted imperfection of this world, and the imperfection of the beings who live in it since they have been driven out of it, which should be enough to remove all responsibility from them."
27 "The supposed merit of each person in society depends first of all on his existence, therefore on his physical and intellectual capacities, then on his education, then on his work. Since no one deserves his existence, and since no one deserves a disability, then no one deserves a gift and the benefits that flow from it?"
28. "A wild tiger is a tiger free to kill another tiger. A wild capitalist is a capitalist free to make another man a slave through money. This is animal liberalism."
29. "How can the sum of automatisms that constitute our body yield anything other than an automaton?"
End - E. Berlherm
