No Space in the System for Free Will 6/7/2014

There is no space left in the system for free will. There is no arguing with the
executioner not to flip the switch. Even if hes convinced from the argument you shout that
you are as innocent you say, who is he to not pull the switch? He will just be deprived of
income if he doesnt play out Milgrams experiment. He will just be replaced by someone who
will do the job. So, he might as well play the part, because he hasnt made an immoral choice,
but if anyone has it was the judge. The guards that dragged you to your death, they cant be
convinced to let you go. Maybe, possibly, they can be convinced that you are innocent, but
they wont be convinced to let you go. Maybe, alone in a forest, with just one of them, you
could convince that single guard to let you run free. But, not with the system pushing that
guard forward. Not if that guard on the left would look like a fool to that guard on the right.
Who is he to question the decisions made by the system?
What about the man arrested for a victimless crime like possessing Marijuana or
procuring a prostitute? What can he say to the judge regarding the logic of the situation? Can
you argue to the judge what you did has nothing immoral about it? Can you tell them that
human laws are sometimes just the result of human error? Can you reason with this judge? He
isnt a judge that has that kind of freedom. He only verifies whether the action was committed
or not, but he isnt the judge of rather we should or should not punish those that take that
action or not. He must not deviate from the legislature. Even if he agrees that the law is inane,
he must follow the rules. There is no room for independent judgment. An injustice must be
committed in the fairness of consistency.
Just look at the state of Marijuana right now in the United States. What happens when
a police officer pulls you over and finds weed in your possession? Do you think you can appeal
to his logic? Do you think you can ask the officer why he will arrest you in your state, but not in
Washington or Colorado? Do you think he will even pass judgment on those laws? Or rather,
what I suspect, is that he will say the law is the law as if that is a better argument than my
whims are my whims that the criminal would use. The officer either has no judgment of his
own, or he thinks that the masses or the elite that can choose to deprive man of his rights, have
more objective value than his own opinion. But wait, the majority of American citizens are now
saying that they think pot should be legalized! And it looks like the legislature might be leaning
that way heading into the future. Do you think the officer will heed that argument? Good luck,
my friend.
And what about the people that pass the laws? The people that are told what the
ethical is, and the legislators that say they are only being told by their people what laws to
make. Who are people to decide what the moral is? They have their friends to tell them what
that is. Who are their friends to question what the moral is? They have the bible to get their
morals from. They have tradition to tell them what has always been done. Who are they to
break from it? They dont analyze their morals. They dont think them through. They just have
them memorized; always with a label handy whenever they see it, ready to put down his or her
judgment, the one that was printed out for him or her. It is our duty to follow the edicts that
have been passed down. It is our duty. It is the duty of the police man to arrest the criminal
whether it was just or not. He doesnt have time to make independent judgments. He has a
job to do, and his job involves taking rights away from men. One man can threaten a system
perpetrator with a gun and that man will respond, Why bother? You will be arrested, and
another will just come and take my place.
The man who catches his woman in bed with another man. His first judgment is
cheater. His first thought is injustice. He becomes indignant. He attacks the man, and
abandons the woman. But what was the only immoral action committed by the woman and
the man? The woman, at worst, was dishonest and broke a contractual agreement. The man
was an accessory to the breaking of a contract. What was this sacrosanct contractual
agreement? Well, for the most part, it is assumed. This contract isnt in writing, so people just
accept it implicitly, almost across the board. The rule is: Im the only man that is allowed to
give you pleasure, and you are the only woman allowed to give me pleasure. The evil of
cheating is that it involved one person making another person happy. Why is this regarded as a
bad thing? Tradition. The carrying on of human weakness as a virtue.
And do we ever have those mavericks that break from the force field carrying them
around through the motions? What happens to those that step out of formation or drop their
baton after throwing it up in the air, even if they didnt ask to be involved in the parade march?
When the sign says: No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service, it is the classless fool who doesnt follow
the rules. Even when that sign doesnt exist, we mockingly and sarcastically call the person we
see a class act. We say that person has no dignity. We use that meretricious title for the
people who refuse to give up their free will to the system. We tell sex workers that they have
no dignity, and that they should be working for minimum wage at McDonalds instead. We tell
certain women that they are being immodest and lacking respects for their body, even though
the accepted fashion trends have been heading the way of showing more skin. But they think
they have found the Aristotelian balance when these same people who judge those women
also say that a woman who holds to the old-style is a prude. Apparently modesty isnt a static
virtue. And is it the woman who isnt ashamed of her body that is disrespecting it by refusing to
hide it like a shameful thing? And who is it that is following fashion styles and why?
So, you think that lone nut has beaten the system, have you? But, that wasnt one of
the options. You are either imprisoned into the system or by the system. You are either locked
into following the code or locked away for not following it. Everyone has agreed that they cant
beat the system, so they might as well join it; they are the reasonable men George Bernard
Shaw told us about. There is that show called Orange is the New Black, and those really are
your choices for the suits you may choose. The role of the criminal or the role of the black
business suit. The guy that everyone assumes is a loon without listening to his opinions, or the
guy that everyone assumes is a liar, tip-toing over broken glass for political correctness,
avoiding lawsuits, keeping his sponsors and his stockholders happy. Both are prisoners.
We tell the man who has an opinion to shut his mouth, because it will create a
disturbance. Never speak about politics or religion. It causes people to think to express
passionate opinions. Never did they realize how true it was, the saying about opinions being
like assholes. If you dont have an opinion, you are full of shit. You are full of bullshit. You
regurgitate only the advice of dignified dead white men, because their opinions, due to the
catalyst of time, became petrified into facts. Facts, people seem to think, are just opinions that
have been fossilized by time. Or maybe I should it state it the opposite way, that people think
that opinions that havent been challenged for centuries have earned their place as accepted
fact.
If you dance when you arent supposed to, you are a crazy man. Supposed by who, you
ask? By everyone, you are told. Everyone else knows the right thing to do, except the insane
man. He is the eccentric. We arent religious anymore, but we still find it rude if someone
doesnt say Bless You when you sneeze. Why is it the proper response? Because we have
become conditioned. We are Pavlovian dogs of morality. We only feel injustice, we cant logic
it out. The woman who was cheated on doesnt have time for your sophistry. Her friends will
find it insulting; her friends will tell her she has been fucked over. Friends know best. They
know how to keep the dog properly salivating when it should. The practical is slow to learn
from the theoretical. Even the few of us that can logically justify actions we have always
regarded as immoral, some of us still cant overcome our conditioning. Some of us
acknowledge our human weakness, but are still affected by the weakness.
Its interesting how a group manages to combine the worst aspects of the id along with
the worst aspects of the superego, the rash impulse to burn someone as a witch and the
defense-mechanism thats cautious not to play the wrong note at a band march. The
dictatorship of truth is being outvoted and overthrown by the democracy of whim.
-Greg dratsab Huffman

(6/9/2014) Addition:
In 1984, it was Big Brother, in the form of government, keeping an eye on your every move,
ready to lock you a way for the slightest indiscretion. Now in 2014, it is Big Brother, in the form
of your family, your friends, and your employer, monitoring your every move via social media,
ready to lock you back in line for any deviation from the proper, the acceptable, the politically
correct. Ready to point out your every mistake, and having a record of it. Donald Sterling,
asshole or not, was a victim of this recently. Penn & Teller proved that Big Brother was easily
distracted, because they had no investment with the target. However, Big Brother in the form
of those of your closest associates, that is a different matter. They take great pride in watching
your every move, for it gives them gossip to share amongst themselves. It adds the flair of the
dramatic to their otherwise boring existences.