The Accuser: “Accused – I say you did something to me!”
The Accused: “No, I didn’t. I wasn’t even there.”
The Accuser: “Well, I feel you did. Arbitrary Authority, do something!”
The Arbitrary Authority: “Accused, I don’t like you, so you must have committed a crime.”
The Accused: “Nope. Didn’t do it. I can prove it. Due process!”
The Arbitrary Authority: “Crap. That again? Well, if we have to – but I’m telling you, you are guilty.”
The Accused: “Cool your jets, AA. Let’s see what the Investigator and the Courts have to say first, how about it?”
The Investigator: “Yep. Here’s the evidence. No way he is guilty.”
The Courts: “We agree. He’s cleared. Not just cleared, but free as a bird cleared.”
The Accuser: “Well, somebody did something.”
The Arbitrary Authority: “That’s OK. We’re going to punish the Accused anyway because we feel your pain. Even if he didn’t do it, society needs to be taught a lesson. It’s about the greater good, right? We don’t care about that due process thing. Like beauty, innocence is in the eye of the beholder.”
The Accused: “Wait. What?”
This is happening. This is is the common outcome used to support the “rape culture” meme on college campuses. First and fanned by a bogus Rolling Stone article, all the fraternities at the University of Virginia were subjected to immediate punishment BEFORE the evidence and verdict of innocence was in – and yet the University administration enforced the punishment. Now it is happening at Brown.
But it isn’t just for colleges. There have been several reports over the last year where men who have been proven by DNA testing to have no biological connection with children were ordered to pay child support.
Look at Obamacare and the King V. Burwell case before the SCOTUS now. It, like the terrible decision by John Roberts to rewrite a tax into a “fee” to prevent O-Care from being unconstitutional, rides on whether or not the courts will re-interpret the meaning of clear language based on “what Congress meant to say” rather than what it actually said.
That’s what the progressive left wants – and what they consistently do – “Forget what we said”, they say. “Give us what we want today!” They cry. No matter that “what the want” will change tomorrow. If any evidence is needed look again to O-Care to see how the President changed the law after it was passed to suit his agenda.
In Chapter IV, Section 23 of John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Civil Government”, he writes :
“This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases.”
This is why America has the Due Process clause of the Constitution and the concept that all accused are innocent until proven guilty. These concepts prevent any authority from applying, enforcing and/or judging guilt or innocence via arbitrary and capricious application of the law.
Postmodernism is all fun and games until innocence is a matter of opinion and agenda and not based on finding of fact. What is being done here is the State, acting as an arbitrary authority, is essentially saying, “Well sure, either we don’t have the evidence to prove you are guilty but we know your type. If you didn’t do it, we know you wanted to. So innocent or not, we’ll just punish you anyway. Why take the chance, am I right?”
If there is no objective standard, there can be no standard at all. When any authority is allowed to make it up as we go along, it no longer matters who is guilty or innocent – it only matters who is in charge. That is what Locke was saying – people can never be free if the rules can be changed on a whim by any authority because that eliminates the possibility of the individual to control their own life.
What is so idiotic about all of this is the progressive left believes their reliance on malleable “standards”, unequal application of the law and fact-free, agenda driven findings of guilt or innocence are the tools to be used to create “fairness” when this approach only destroy any chance of true fairness.