solomon's seal (3), transigience

really i am serious about that i will write about what we need to start with a change for the better with the future of earth, and us.

it is a tough job, if i forget a thing, will people just forget about it?
if i say something in careless way, open for lousy interpretation, will it be grabbed and hammered with like all to often?

will it be taken out of context and abused , even for years? will people with a positive approach also be misleaded in such a case? it all happened before.

next i am not even (alltho there is some trauma) capable of doing my own formality's certainly not in the senseless and repetive manner that is obligatory in the policy they call "bullying policy"

wich it is.. enjoying their powers to scr.w with the individual.. stress people untill they are vulnerable and start hurting..

these things and the broad and vast material make it hard to dare to speak out.

----------------------

transigience is an example. since evryone is dependend of laws for safety and freedom, and after all to have, shape or voice an opinion, to change the world into a sustainable system we need something like laws.

very much so, in the detail with environment, and the rights of the person.

a person has rights, logical, human rights translate into civil and individual rights.

for now i stick with the word 'rights' an alternative could be guarantees, or even accomplishments;)

however since i am expressing what could be and should be right, i am talking (1) about rights that are "real", not exactly the ones we know now to be abusive and hypocrit, but theoretical ones that would apply in an effective not in a class justice way,

transigience is only one such detail i could forget, we humans have rights 'as a person',

but.. bloodless entity's want the same rights (under the capitalist circumstance of wich their 'rights' would "massively" prevail) and they want extras if they can,

denying the inherent difference between pain and cash, the corps and institutes want to be 'persons before the law'.

we will find people ready to debate that history had it's use, you find people for everything.. if money is in the picture,
but doubt it, i think the use it had was to overtake the rights on individual (and collective of) people all the way.

so we have to get rid of such false definitions, just like violence in the law is violence persee,

violence against living beings, (well it is not yet but rumpey anounced even eu was ready to change the treaty's) a person is a person persee.


we hope some day we can freely be 'persons responsible for the law', and responsability to the law is ofcourse also inherent(2) to corporations etc.

however they are not 'person', because that is a misleading term and an inroad to abuse, abuse of people , animal, groups, nations and most pronouncedly the environment,

also in legal proceeding from transigients (those entitys before the law that cannot be a person , so the ones with no 'human' rights,) towards persons a lot needs to be changed, foremostly that the principle(s like) of proportionality and force majeur apply for every individual, far and far over any transigients, (3)

(allthough that would not so much work out between transigience's , so in the (opposite of) the laws against cartels and trusts, in the negotiations between transigients they would ofcourse tend to weigh equal (unless human causes are involved and people are represented through institutions alltho that logically follows from that in fact judges should weigh the human rights under all circumstance.)

so without much further elaboration.

there are persons. humans responsible before the law,

and transigients , institutions before the law, allowing me to end this paragraph on a note,

in fact by way of joke they are also responsible to the tax office;) so it easily follows how they so often became intransigient.

ok for today? maybe i try for more, later.
thx for all the interesse and response (even if i have not learned to fully trust the kind of it),

it will get better, more radical , more gamechanging perhaps, for the masses, and worse to need to notion for the elites. i hope it serves as an example of the legalistic nightmare i move through (here and now) and into(trying to change it), and how we need to learn, learn to apply, and actually 'live' 'good faith'.

i know it is not concise,(it's just one point and not even one of the very major perhaps_ for me it feels like an okay start, so it must be like this. that's my offhandedness with formality allover,
if it don't work like it feels good for me i just don't get myself to work.

thx. please do.

(1) in these numbered articles.
(2) is iminent a word? noone ever uses it much for this.

(3)into the detail transigents should ofcourse be dictated similarly for proportionality among another, and force majeur should be restricted to cases where 'force' has a practical meaning.
like floods (uncaused and not effected by transigients), but not like industrial accidents.
applying force majeur to eg. a board of directors would signal intransigience, they are the 'force' of a company, easy to see i do not want to deal with every detail and that things must be interpreted 'radically' because change is relatively 'radical' , and btw. because so am i, i am not trying for halfhearted compromises with any lobby or 'power that be'. i am not trying to formulate any, so don't try to find them in what i write.

i will touch on organising the judicial system in another post. alltho there is observably much wrong , justice will be 'what is just', and allthough judges are not that 'just', (actually a bunch of elitist morons but we will change that) they can for now continue and try to decide in reason,

when somewhat more of the concepts are in a 'working at' state, and probably it is essential that i first write on the plans concerning justice, it is early enough to 're educate' them judges.

a bit of an exageration, and concerning the mentalitys in transigients (a court would be one),
even optimist, my hope is systems will work out and judges will at least be willing to try for a more obvious and transparant system, go figure.. we need to free 100000s of prisoners , if even experimentally , as a test, in cases. would they like that? not if the context of 'justice' is unclear,

wich they will hold against 'it' (me) the very second they can probably, because that is what elites do, find excuse.

gl.