Whenever we get a blatant case of corporatism, where government is peddling its influence or using its monopoly on violence on behalf of a specific business, it's always "Oh, what a nasty, corrupt company" and never "what a nasty, corrupt state".
At the moment, we're similarly faced with McDonalds, who have paid a metric fucktonne of money to sponsor the Olympics, insisting on something that was in their contract being honoured. No-one is as outraged at the naked profiteering that the Olympics has become as they are at someone who paid a lot of money trying to recoup it legally.
I don't agree with the laws, I don't agree with all the crap that's come with the Olympics, but it's funny how the rule of law and morality have become divorced.
No-one really objects to the rule of law being applied to murder, theft, assault, etc. But it's almost as though the law has taken on a life of its own and has become divorced from being a clear codification of reasonable morals and ethics and turned into a Hydra of arcane, hair-splitting nonsense that drains us of our reason and stamps all over our will.
What moral purpose is there to a law which defines "ZIL lanes" for Olympic plutocrats? What moral purpose is there to a law which defines what you may eat in specific parts of London? What moral purpose is there to a law which disallows you from using the current year in your own marketing efforts if it is not approved by LOCOG?
There are really too many laws, regulations, statutory instruments and rules in our lives. You can't reasonably be expected to comply with things if you're not even aware they exist. "Ignorance is no excuse for the law" was a reasonable thing when there weren't hundreds of thousands of laws, rules and regulations micro-managing the minutiae of our lives. I think, perhaps, it is time to rethink that maxim.
But in the meantime, remember that it's business taking advantage of things that are offered to them by corrupt authorities. In the American parlance: don't hate the player, hate the game.
8 comments:
Exactly. The cunts that paid for the Olympics and handed over all these powers were the people in government.
I heard some Lib Dem complaining that there was no British ale at the Olympics. Well, his party voted for the Olympics Bill and it was all in there back in 2005.
Shit dude, they only had seven years to figure it out...
I am beginning to wonder whether "being unable to comprehend all laws" becomes a valid defence in society.
Seriously, as an educated human being I struggle sometimes.
The government, mcdonalds, the olympics, should put em all in a book. Could call it 50 shades of shit.
Please pop in to Twitter, my time line is full of such sweet comments about where the hell is the Clown? Frankly it's getting on my tits!
I was having a ponder around this the other day. But obviously my thoughts remained nebulous and ill formed, being unable to put anything that pops into my mind into sentences. Which is ironic really. (@soundwords) but back in the day when I was at York Uni doing English, I 'did' Anglo-Saxon literature. I can safely say that I 'did' it because there isn't a huge amount of it. But to fill in the gaps, we had to grip with the language and the laws. Their laws were pretty good. Murder = X, Adultery = Y. Crimes were paid back with money (but also obviously a bit of killing and getting revenge in other ways which I wouldn't want to go back to, oh, and spells) but there was a clear standard. So today we have the lovely Paul Chambers and Sir Olly with a criminal record cos Paul made a joke on Twitter and Sir Olly just said what he thought, but we have other folk walking out of court/a parliamentary enquiry/etc. without any such thing when they are cleary cunts, I mean criminals. In the legal sense of the word. So, let's strip it back. I feel more oppressed now in2012 than I ever have done (as a woman or as a lefty (particularly hanging out with the types of Obo and his right-wing libertarian ilk)or when stuff was happening in the late 80s, early 90s when Alton tried to make abortion illegal and there was Clause 28. But I've a feeling that with folk in parliament more interested in making an impression and Europe passing a few more odd things our way, our statute books can only get bigger and bigger. How about for every new/shit rule/bylaw/law/piece of legislation, one has to be taken away? But can we keep the one about dog poo? Only scrap the fines and make it obligatory for the owner, if caught leaving shit on the pavement, to have them in the stocks and have the poo thrown at them? All those in agreement say, "Aye."
Government with no morals?.. That's because anyone who is in a position of power is seduced by greed and corruption! If you don't play ball with the majority, you will be ousted!
Dog poo? What about all the cat poo, bird poo, mouse poo, badger poo, deer, fox and rabbit poo? Who do you want to punish for that?
Shit happens.
Post a Comment