The alternative to the current demands for reforming the police is to reform the justice system by redefining the purpose of laws to condition the population instead of requiring perpetual enforcement. To the extent the court system is still needed, it needs to operate more swiftly ended with a complete resolution in a very short time.
Assuming a post-scarcity world, the big challenge will be how to satisfy the human need for justice. At the very least, there will be two systems of justice: one for the wealthy celebrities and another for the rest. The masses will have very little opportunity to seek justice from the wealthy, especially once democracy is replaced or rendered lame from politics of division of ever smaller identity groups. Over time (especially over generations), we will learn to satisfy our needs for justice though non-governmental means.
Contrary to President Trump’s declaration, we have an inescapable need to have laws that coerce, dominate, and control our lives. There may be some people who think they can live without those laws, but I suspect that will only work when they are on an island isolated from any dissenting peers. There is something deep within us that recognizes that the rule of law is essential to our being humans.
This system of governance inevitably results in over criminalizing because it equates so many unrelated violations of law into a single category of a crime requiring a prison sentence. We may need these laws, and for argument’s sake I’ll grant that prison sentences are a valid form of punishment. I question the need for all of these laws to require prison penalties. I question the wisdom of equating any violation of such a wide range of laws to be a single category: an imprisonable convict.
In the analogy of the recent sexual controversies coming out of Hollywood, the repeated behavior by one individual results in the group ostracizing the offending individual even though each of his transgressions were satisfactorily settled individually. When it emerges that the group is not adequately policing itself, that offends an external group such as one part of the industry versus another. This becomes a new injustice requiring a settlement between groups. This process of cascading continues with every larger groups demanding some type of settlement from the other group.
Government of data and urgency permits as bright-data the observations of events leading up to the then-interpreted injustice and the observation of the terms of the subsequent settlement. The only data that is excluded is the dark-data of the now-settled prior-claim of injustice.
The delusion of injustice is that there cannot be privately negotiated justice that may be acceptable only to the private parties based on the particular context that they agree to keep private. As a result of this, we overrule such private agreements and require a fresh trial in a public or formal setting based on current sensibilities and on lost information about the full context of the earlier event. In the re-airing of past events, society regresses to a more immature level where every human interaction needs adult supervision and every offense be reported to authorities for a formal justice.
These cases are often described as open-secrets. Many people in the community are aware of the information about individual cases and about the pattern of behavior, but there has been some kind of understanding that the past events are resolved in some acceptable terms, and that ongoing behavior is restrained by certain conditions. The oxymoron of open-secrets can be resolved by defining the open-part as being observed data, while the secret-part is restraints on how this data may be used in future decision making.
We need a new approach to governance at all scales in order to sustain and build upon our culture. I think a new approach is possible by recognizing that narratives are expendable. We do not need consistency of narratives over time, for all narratives at all scales from nations to individuals.
In the near term, the question about same sex marriages seems to be centered on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Eventually, I believe the supreme court will need to address a 13th amendment question about marriages in general. Does state recognition of marriage as providing special autonomy to individuals shielded from state interference violate the 13th amendment’s prohibitions against slavery and (implicitly) indentured servitude? While religious recognition of marriage is legitimate and may vary, the state may be justified in not recognizing any marriages so that it will continue to be able to protect against abusive labor arrangements. The equal protections of the 14th amendment applies also to the prohibitions of slavery of the 13th amendment. Taken together, the two amendments should prohibit that states from offering any special recognition and privileges to marriages that are not also available to more routine corporate charters.