Justice – Erosion of the Foundation

April 14, 2015 (San Diego) –

            I think all people of this country should be concerned about the erosion of the decision making process away from justice and towards capriciousness. In a democracy leadership decisions must be made with the “greater good” in mind. Doing what seems “right to me” is narrow and not sustainable when others begin to follow that role.

The most current example before my eyes is the former Secretary of State deciding to keep all her email on a private unprotected server “for convenience.” Convenience is not a “good for all” decision process, but a “good for me” process. What should alarm many is that some 47% believe the use of the private server was “no big deal.” Whether the use of the server was a big deal or not, though I personally believe it to be a huge deal, the decision to do so, a decision supported by those all around her is nightmarish. The thinking must go like this, if the Secretary of State can make up her rules when she wants then I can also. The foundation for the decisions is personal and not necessarily based on justice.

The way justice factors into this is when the “for me” decision making is directly and purposefully aimed at another party.

Who is to say that the decision making at the IRS, reportedly by Lois Learner, was not an extrapolation of the central thinking of, making your own rules. That focus “disenfranchised” several political action groups even to this day and put fear in the hearts of others that the same may happen to them. A variant of this was exercised by the Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin. This time aimed at the supporters of Gov. Walker, when running for reelection last year.

How many decisions by the DOJ were extrapolations of this same decision making? Will the next awful decision be built on the same, “I can do what I want to do!” Who can stop me? When the top of power seems to model such behavior then the water bursts forth from the dam. Justice becomes corrupted and the people are abused.

Of course therein is the syllogism: if the top of power supports breaking disliked rules, and such and such a rule or peoples is/are disliked: ip so facto – the rule can be broken. One does not need direct permission to act, the syllogism acts on its own momentum.

freedom bell

I would bet this reality is not only practiced by the current Washington power brokers, but by any power brokers who do not seek transcendent justice as the foundation of their decisions. Since our country is a democracy then the transcendent base of decision making must be what is good for the majority.

Democracy is built on the rule of law not the rule of “what seems good to me.”

Speak Your Mind

*