Skip to content

Outdoing hysteria

August 22, 2013

Americans: Lucky to have the Web and all that the Internet offers that were for the best.

… Unlucky to have a growing gulf between the concept of greater personal safety (great transit effort saved by having online-nexus at common disposal) and any trend of absence.

There was a point somewhere c. 2002-3 when I noticed that there were public facilities out there in the city that no one was using (presumably it was a warm day during the winter months).  It was rather inconceiveable but nonetheless one of those lesser iconoclastic moments where reality doesn’t gibe with expectation.

Lest the situation be presented any worse than it was, those years were nonetheless directly after events of September 11, 2001. For anyone who doesn’t know what happened, there were orchestrated hijackings of four planes on the very same day by inarguible terrorists who rammed two of those planes into skyscrapers in New York City. One plane was probably shot down by Pentagon antiaircraft, and the 4th plane went down somewhere in Pennsylvania. Such ambitious effort was monumental in the scheme of all terrorism that had gone before in the USA, which was generally sparse. There had been odd bombings over the years, but never anything on such unbelieveable, apocalyptic scale. There’s actually no writing off the event. In the way that those attacks occurred, every nation of the world now has an active, ostensible stake in securing the sort of peace in the world that looks hell-bent on succeeding. That’s not their fault any more than nuclear weapons or virtual nuclear weapons qualified under the phrase nuclear fission reactor plants. We always need to make plans; we must remain ever vigilant … against all manner of evil.

The USA, generally at the federal level, has been treating the virtual scenario of orchestrated demolition as a public emergency, the sort of what the U. S. Constitution mentions in brief in like terminology. There has been some sort of surge in challenging traditionally popular American notions of security with ideas of how speech or words alone both are not sufficient to establish basis for action. No; You need to know the law at some point. (Or if you mean point as in “pike,” or “spear,” then you probably need to know the law at each point.) Ideas such as government having specific powers have emblazoned pages of news sources both paper and plastic/silicon, and the reaction has generally been disconnected albeit traditional (“don’t trust the government.”)  Nor did I say wrong. Ideas and legislation emitted at the federal level now has attempted to follow through on capturing the moment as a divisive one and recognize need to challenge and eliminate the sort of doubt that can be habit-forming.

We are not alright; we’ve been hit where it matters. And no one has lain any fault as part of the American institution. No one has come out and said, “These terrorist activities have a rational and factual explanations.” In other words, we may still bear plenty of cause for doubt. Instead, it was straight into war and destruction that were certainly in defense of treaties outstanding. Prospects of nuclear armageddon, mass orchestrated terrorism, upheaval in maintaining good relations with other nations, and general catapulting of morale into depths of despair while feeling assailed constantly to do the right thing are not easy tasks.

Still, looking at the prospect of reigning in unnecessary commitments outside the borders and getting out of any extraneous alliance that is not ; if we do not do so and the USA were to become an empire, then the USA would be hated for establishing itself not as a dominant power that belongs 98% in North America (excepting treaties that have obligated, but with what time limitation?) but rather for arrogance of believing that it has been “chosen” to lead the world because of its unlimited appeal and unwavering virtues. Never mind that the USA has obliged herself to many legal bases for being overseas in militant form.

Could there be any way to shrink government by de-militarizing its grip on the rest of the world and focusing on building — but protecting — its own infrastructure domestically?

There can still be trade between nations without the perception that active armies belong only in other nations. Whatever the vision of the United Nations, the contrary idea that private legal entities could administer to much of the world the sort of fairness and due process for any matter of arrest that could ensure free trade globally lacks only the concept of a fair and internationally-accredited mode of justice that would be capable of satisfying the peoples of nations of any sort.

The ocean is in no danger of being “seized” in the near future, although a greater presence of floating structures shall only be realistic to anticipate. That international trade could flow from ocean to ocean and from port to  port without interference from warring states or piracy on the high seas would surely fulfill something of many an ancient mariner’s dream. Protecting such an apparatus with private security would directly mean accountability not to one but to many nations, asking in return only that the charter, legally founded and instituted as well as supported by many nations, be honored and that its law be adhered to.

Just such an act might require a new “Magna Carta,” a new Constitution that could be agreed on by many nations to serve the interests of trade solely as such concern shore-to-shore, by sea, and by administration to that implicit area. Such a document does not even need to cover anyone residing on the ocean as such concern matters of trade, although the private endeavor could admit any such entity’s ownership to contract to be included deliberately in matters of concern for security against pirates or warring state vessels (“privateeers” of any sort).

Such regard would probably end up in establishing general trade routes of more specific quality that would be considered “in-range” of protections and regulation administered to by such private business that would be using technology to establish the identity for any vessel in transit to a port and further decide whether any particular vessel should be held in suspicion so as to render aid or protection from distress. These wayward trading ships would probably be organized under trade unions that pay the private security firm an annual rate that covers every vessel registered under its wing.

And anyone could buy security directly from the trade union or instead directly from the private security company. Even ships that are not trading from port to port but that go out and fish could buy in, probably at a lesser rate for not being much trouble to track. Other benefits, such as private communiques that explain anything from weather warnings to sightings of hostile ships, and possibly programming that offer helpful tips, could come from this (am seeing this as digital and encrypted transmissions that do not trap anything nor anyone in random accidental significance or into significance loops or loops of meaning. Such as persons suffering from identification simultaneity distress — a form that trauma can take.)

Private security regulating ocean trade for consistency with trouble-free egress would hire people from all supportive nations and direct worthy goals that do not hinge on military dominance being the only available vehicle. Fairness thus would be possible and should be perceived as viable. To underwrite such a company with a constitution and provide support for its existence as nations, the question of how justice shall be tended to emerges. In cases between plaintiff and defendant, there would necessarily be need for an appeals sort of system. Giving defendant or plaintiff benefit of the doubt would not be reasonable, so the case would not be tried in either nation of citizenship of either plaintiff or defendant.

The right to be represented in the courtroom, however, would be paramount. Defendant should have something of a 50%-50% stack of jurors, 50% from the plaintiff’s nation and 50% from the defendant’s nation. Other cases can be decided if the defendant were willing by mediation involving the equivalent of courtroom justices — or even a single judge, in low stakes “misdemeanor” cases. Just because an international contest exists does not necessarily require that jurors be diverse. However, if the State — any nation — constitutes the plaintiff of the case, then it would be a diverse slate of jurors with the defendant guaranteed 25% of the juror picks from the given, associated nation of defendant’s origin — a right that may also be waved if approved by the governor of the defendant’s home state or province and requested to be waived by the defendant. Offering justice with some amount of representation behind it, if the governor of the defendant’s state believes that the state has a vested interest in the matter, then the governor may elect to appeal the case to the President or Congress and send a delegation to represent the national interest in the matter, consisting of lawyers and other professionals who could be most resourceful in providing expert testimony. And the same for any nation, to see justice done as such concern the matters being decided.

But the process would not decide the matter “once and for all,” but instead solely on a case-by-case basis so that the decision would not bind the other nations to change their laws. This little element maintains the legitimacy of the private security company’s capacity to carry out its designated functions without throwing mandate after mandate around.

You’ve got to admit that it’s not actually a difficult job to police the seas since those tend to be sparsely occupied, unless you start throwing fleets of ships coming from all directions into conflict, which is not practical to expect with today’s coordinate-navigational devices (a.k.a. GPS, global positioning systems).

Appeals would be more interesting. If such an international court were administered, then it would probably be most practical to use it for each appeal. The question of a private system of justice would, of course, amount to the question of whom were being served.  Is the business of being a nation really about justice — or about law?

America solved the problem of justice in a criminal trial by leaving it to the people, in the form of jurors, to decide. In non-criminal trials, you basically pick whether a judge shall decide the case or whether a jury should. There could be a few exceptions to the latter condition of non-criminal-trial. If, as American tradition contends, justice shall be decided by the people — by a representative jury of one’s peers, as the phrase goes — then the question of who lives in the vicinity of the crime necessarily becomes relevant. And that would be a geographical matter that relates to who lives nearby who also has a role in seeing the interests of port to port trade served, since it were their competence that factors in to the very profile of port to port trade, safety, and security.

Bringing nations together over matters that they and their people benefit from would probably be a good idea. For such an enterprise to succeed and administer private security over the seas, also acting in the capacity (like AAA with triptiks and travelers checks) and general navigational courses, the question of whether there were any need for this comes to mind. It does so happen to be the case that a few people of the world live like navigating a boat will be more practical that riding a bike or using a car.

And as oceans fill with floating islands, the prospect could become something of a “viable economic sector.” One day there could be such pre-plotted courses as well as floating structures that in fact amount to full service restaurants and malls for navigators positioned along common courses and key areas. There might could be something of an oceanic highway and oceanic economy — if ship navigators can be incentivized to follow pre-planned “security courses” so as to constitute a popular movement of progress. Some cruise ships could even downsize their operations and simply go point-to-point on the ocean chasing after invigorating designer restaurants with exciting architecture that don’t necessarily have any tax to pay. And considering the bad reputation of how cruise ships treat their workers, it would probably be a win-win situation. Evidently, to work on a cruise ship is not synonymous with bad treatment.

Going from the hysteria and uncertainty of the recent century and all its conflicts to better, saner shoelaced prospects for “global peace headers” by covering goals of worthy design that can hope to gain international support would probably be a good idea now. The economic potential could be there at any time. And the best way to promote such a grand oceanic scheme would probably be to incentivize using boats to accomplish certain recreational tasks that otherwise are not popular: casinos, alcoholic drinks, hash bars, college courses, professional seminars, fan conventions, film festivals, thespian extravaganzas, training exercises, schooling for special hands-on skills, book signing and special celebrity opportunities, but absolutely zero human exploitation.  The ship would also need a wide, spiral bicycle path that extends near the outer edge of the deck. That’s about the only thing that could incentivize some people to go on a cruise of any sort — and a trip complete with oceanic pizza delivery. Yes?!?


From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Stamp a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: