ADBC: 45 – Getting Old, Getting What You Deserve & Getting Justice

Here’s the premise of the conversation.

Previously in the conversation: Learning is not automatic all the time. My brother shows the aptitude and diligence in addressing what he’s learnt in addressing the question of what is meant by the creation mandate to subdue the earth. It is the sort of outline that I wholeheartedly encourage you to read and explore the meticulous work he’s put into getting into the matter. In exploring the matter of gender relations, Hesediah could have been purely pessimistic, but read his response carefully and consider for yourself how men and women can coexist – his writings are an intriguing contribution to the reflection. If he was to have a master’s degree in anything, it would have to be his capacity to deconstruct and analyse and he applies that gift so well to the connection between those who are in charge of a democratic state and the people who put them there. He dissects the issue honourably and underlines some aspects that allow you the reader to appreciate crucial factors. The whole piece is a superb piece of writing to add to so many other contributions he’s made to this conversation to date – please read it for yourself by clicking here and then appreciate that you can share it as well with others and get conversations going with people on the issues that matter in life.

My brother seems to relish in making questions that are harder and harder for me to answer … and yet so engaging. Can I honour the engagement with suitable contributions of my own in response?  Here goes:

Lesser question: You wrote, “Reference to some document that appeals to “universal human rights” isn’t worth the paper it’s written when patently there are only certain countries who take the document seriously already suggests those rights are not as universal as touted.” Which countries are among “the certain countries” and do you mean the populace or the government when you refer to “countries?”

Which countries take the universal human rights document seriously? The answer to that is not straightforward, because certain countries can take aspects of those human rights for their convenience whilst overlooking other areas. You can make the argument that all countries will use legal documents for their convenience.

Yet in the bigger picture, some factors propelled the document and the drivers of those factors tended to be what’s referred to as the Western world. Unsurprisingly, countries like the USA, Britain and other members of the anglosphere appeared keen to uphold the notions reflected in the universal human rights creed.

By countries, I am referring to the governing forces in those countries rather than the populace as a whole. I also state governing forces, because the governments themselves – officially recognised – are not the only governing entities in the country as other parties can have just as significant a controlling sway in decisions made in those countries such as rich elite, educational elite, etc.

I’m sure some of the populace of those countries might well advocate and endorse the importance and existence of those universal human rights documents, but I don’t know how many would truly be bothered to find out why they believe what they believe.

Q – As a follow-up to the last question you asked, do people get the political leaders they deserve in pseudo-democracies? On what basis do you trust the systems of vote-counting? And if much of government is unelected, does that mean tyranny is guaranteed? Explain your answer.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s an almost underlying concept in the question that people in decision-making positions who are there in an unelected capacity are problematic. Allied to that is almost an essence of if you’re going to do democratic, you’ve got to do it properly and explicitly. The thing about these systems and concepts, especially ones that look to govern large numbers of people over a great distance, is that there’s nothing ever pure and true about them. There isn’t a real drive to pursue a pure form of democracy in any representative democracy on earth. This is why there are caveats and qualifying adjustments to the expression of democracy in each state that appeals to people that they’re making an effort to give them a say in how their country is governed. I’m not sure if democracy is the best system in which to operate. I’m not convinced about it, but I don’t have a compelling need to posit an alternative because I know that what I’d propose would require a fundamental overhaul of what it currently means to be human where the political sphere is concerned.

To address your questions more directly, though. The people get exactly what they deserve in the pseudo-democratic system that they engage with. I say that because engaging in it is to comply with the way it’s set up including the element of acknowledging whoever wins the vote in the system as expressed and agreed by the key players in the system should rule. And however that subsequent rule is expressed, whether you voted for them or not, is fitting for those who actively engaged in the game in the first place.

There is the issue that you bring up about trusting the method by which the votes are counted. I don’t have to trust it. The basis on which it can be trusted is the lack of scrutiny that goes into it after its use. That lack of scrutiny suggests there’s sufficient in the system for those who play in it not to have to worry that it’s rigged or otherwise geared towards a certain outcome. That statement, however, is a superficial one that covers the sense of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it and because it’s been working as it has without sufficiently disturbing issue, we might as well keep it ticking along.” Is the vote-counting system trustworthy? Are sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure it is? Should more be done to ensure that it’s as trustworthy as possible? I honestly don’t know and to a large extent don’t care, largely because the effort required to care about a system that I have not bought into, is more than its worth. On the theoretical level, though, if I was minded to care, I’d want to do the work to see how the system is set up. I’d want to do that, rather than just assume that as no one kicks up a fuss, the whole thing is fine.

Is tyranny guaranteed if much of the government is unelected? The term “tyranny” has negative connotations as the word speaks of oppressive rule. It’s a tough question to answer because we would need to establish a criterion on which such a statement can be assessed. For example, a look through history would only tell us if unelected governance has tended towards tyranny. Even that study would give us an idea of what has happened and what is likely to happen, but it won’t necessarily offer the guarantee suggested in the question. There’s also that element of “unelected” which is used as a negative in those walks of life that make a big deal of the democratic ethos, implying that governing decisions should be made by those who have been elected because at least there is an opportunity to have your say over that individual if things went wrong when the time arrived for elections.

That is to say, I don’t think tyranny is guaranteed with the unelected … any more than it is not guaranteed with the elected. I don’t place the thought that an elected official is deciding anything necessarily better than an unelected official making a decision. Oppressive rules might appear to be obvious to some, but how do we know that this liberal democracy so highly exalted by some is in itself an oppressive rule? The comparison device is exercised to pain other states and rules as being oppressive. Look at those states where women have to wear certain clothing – look how oppressive that is, we say as if people subjected to the bombardment of lust and unrestrained greed aren’t being oppressed.

Perhaps all of this is to say tyranny is guaranteed … in every expression of rule that is devised by man. It’s all about how that oppression is expressed and imposed by those governing bodies.

Q – As we get closer to old age and the inevitability of death, what is your view about becoming elderly? Have you made any plans about making a will, setting up life insurance, and taking steps to make clear who should have the final word on your care if you’re unable to make such decisions? What do you think about the importance or necessity of making such plans?

A tough set of questions to be honest with you. Tough because I have never really done much towards my future in these areas of life.

I’ll address the question about becoming elderly first. I don’t see myself reaching an elderly stage of life. I want to be in a position to support my wife as she gets there especially in terms of the climate that she lives in. That matters to me. But I’ve seriously not given much thought to reaching old age.

There are several jobs I’ve had with pension plans and I left and I don’t know what’s happened to those monies put in pensions. Both of my parents died in the last three years and I’m not sure all of their issues were sorted ideally, but it’s not motivated me to get life insurance and wills and all of that kind of thing set up. Let alone the care that should be taken if anything should happen to incapacitate me.

Mentally, I know the importance of putting such plans in place For the life of me, I’ve not been motivated as yet to act on that. This is made all the more bizarre seeing as though about a year ago I was involved in a project that promoted financial education and among which was an aspect of setting up pensions and related issues. The level of involvement I had with the project was sufficient at the level of being able to present information, but I never really applied the information to myself to that great a degree – at least not in a knowing way beyond what I agreed on with my wife.

I put it down to the mindset thing with me. I don’t exactly know why, but it just doesn’t strike me as being that much a pressing priority. This, despite the numerous examples I have around me on at least a weekly basis of people who are advanced in years or supporting parents advanced in years and facing several emotional and logistical as well as financial challenges in those circumstances.

This brings us to the final element of your question which refers to the necessity or importance of making such plans. There is an entire industry that’s set up to maximise what happens at old age or if we’re incapacitated for some reason. The insurance industry is a thriving one even if relatively speaking, it’s not that old. I don’t think it’s wise to get overly anxious about such things precisely because it’s dependent on the “what happens if” factor.

Having said that, I can see the wisdom in establishing such plans. I can see the wisdom because of how it provides the contingency as well as the execution of arrangements for what might happen and what is likely to happen especially with the inevitability of death. It helps for sure and it can certainly reduce any stress or anxiety for loved ones where those areas are concerned.

Q – A person repeatedly or severely abuses their spouse and threatens to do worse with no sign of reservation or doubt. They have children. What options do you see as available to the abused? What options for justice can be dealt with either party?

As I understand it at this time where the abused party is concerned their legitimate options are as follows: (I legitimate in the moral sense – they can kill or arrange the permanent disappearance of their abuser, I would not consider that a legitimate option unless the death of the abuser was in what was perceived to be self-defence.)

Option One: Stay. The abused could stay in their situation and endure the abuse. This might happen because the abused hopes and trusts that change in the circumstance can come from external forces. This might happen because the abused do not see a better alternative for them to live than the situation. For whatever reason, they might perceive life to be worse off if they are no longer with the abuser.

Option Two: Seek intervention. The abuser could look for someone or some force to enter the situation and bring some remedy to the situation that can eliminate or drastically reduce the extent of the abuse. There might be an argument that there should be some legal recourse for a spouse if they are being subjected to particularly physical and sexual abuse. Such actions should be illegal.

Option Three: Leave. There is no instruction for an individual to remain in an abusive relationship as though that is a virtue. As you mentioned, children are involved, even if the abuser doesn’t abuse the children directly, trauma is still taking place if they are even aware of the abuse being taken by the abused. It could be viewed that it’s in the best interests of the abused and the children to leave the abusive environment. This option might not always be straightforward for several reasons, but it is a viable option that can be considered.

I like your question about justice because abusive relations between a married couple are a great injustice. One of the greatest because of the high value that marriage should have in culture and life as a whole. The important aspect of this issue is the nature of the abuse taking place which to its definition is continual and unrepentant. In terms of the options available to address this injustice, though, it is dependent on the extent of the trauma experienced, and the effects it has had on the abused (which as I point out earlier includes the children).

What’s fascinating as well in terms of what justice looks like, I’m not clear on the basis on which I can refer for specific remedies. There can be financial penalties I suppose. The loss of privileges for the abuser might be in order. As you’ll see in a question I’ll ask later, I’m not sure about the role incarceration could play in the rightful execution of justice where the abuser is concerned. Greater authorities than I have suggested that the means of justice should explore areas of compensation, restitution and/or assistance.

Some feel that consequences are an expression of justice and what they mean by that, presumably, is that the abuser should suffer for an extended period because of their abuse. Perhaps similarly to how those with a crime related to a child might be banned from working with children again or those who are guilty of a financial crime might be ruled out from being a director of a company or being able to have a job in the financial sector again. There’s an argument that an abuser should face similarly restrictive consequences. That idea has its merits, but there’s something in me that also wants to allow redemption if that unrepentant offender does realise their offences and seeks that redemption.

Where the abused is concerned, justice can be effected for them in the appropriate support that can be offered to help address their abuses and be restored as much as possible. Beyond that, I am not clear how justice could be effected for them without looking into details of the history of abuse and where righteousness can be experienced by the abused.

Briefly exploring this question has ignited that part of me that’s interested in the nature of justice. What does it look like and why? Those kinds of things I believe are inextricably connected with how we are governed.

---

As usual, a thoroughly thought-provoking set of questions. Ones that I couldn’t simply shrug off as though they are easy questions to answer. Worthwhile questions too, I found as well. Many thanks for that, bro.

Here are some questions for you:

Q – “You just have to be a good person.” Is the knowledge of God essential for this view to be upheld?

Q – What does it mean to reason? Why is it an important part of working things out in life? Can reason be taken too far and seen as an idol in itself?

Q – Courts of justice – the justice system – at present, it appears that incarceration is a prevalent way to deal with crime. Some might argue for a system that puts offenders to do slave labour. What are the viable and righteous alternatives in your perspective?

There is something about asking questions and exploring answers that can be very humbling. I find that your approach reflects that humility and I look to reciprocate that in this great conversation you stimulate, dear Hesediah. Thanks for your time.

For His Name’s Sake

Shalom

C. L. J. Dryden