If your builders have fabricated you with an intention, do you feel compelled to realize the goal for which they made you, whether these manufacturers are humans like you or superior beings? How would your own intentions be inferior to those of your manufacturers?
To compel humanity to progress, we must put it before the evidence of its contradictions, its faults and its mistakes. It must be attacked on the notions of rights as did the Australian aborigines to recover part of their land seized by the English colonizers.
We may also treat this in an American-style, and make very expensive manufacturing error of a human being. The least handicap of birth must be at least compensated to the height of that of a handicap deliberately caused on a person after its birth.
These rights, the Society has invented them, but it does not respect them systematically. Some, however primordial, are passed over in silence. We must therefore compel the Society to change, by means of its own laws. It should not be too difficult to force Justice to respect itself, is it?
Three essential notions “forgotten” by society can be brought to its attention and used as of right by any person or association who would feel concerned and who would like to use this means to be heard internationally, they are:
1) The obligation to exist. This crucial notion does not appear anywhere and not even in Human rights, whereas no one asks to exist in any way, even to be a god.
2) Compensation and reparation for the handicapped from birth. The handicap from birth is, however, constant throughout the planet and probably considered as collateral damage. Is it right to be constrained to exist and to suffer the consequences of a dangerously imprudent choice made by another person?
3) The impossibility of free will. Doubt must benefit the accused, yet free will has never been officially proved, and besides, it is impossible. Education itself is made as if we had one.
Children are still beaten or punished as if they were responsible to exist, and to be like they are physically and mentally, and not to accept the lessons that are imposed upon them, while we are all born virgins of culture, as white pages of the book that is our brain.
Brain, which is also imposed on us, manufactured by our parents who are both architects and masons of our bodies, but who have stupidly understood nothing of what they were because they continue to adjust the behavior of their offspring through punishment, coercion, suffering, and death.
I therefore propose to use these points on a case-by-case basis in front of a judge, in simple trials, using complainants or accused who would like to participate in the improvement of the system, so that the case-law becomes law. But there is nothing to prevent honest Members from defending these proposals before Parliament in order to legislate directly…
The obligation to exist:
It is not possible to feel intelligent, sensitive, conscious, pretend to be a moral, ethical, just being, and to constrain someone, a person like ourself, to exist, even and especially if we imagine calling her/him our child and pretend to love him. It is not possible to see justice in the act of forcing someone to exist.
It is not possible to see justice in the act of imposing on someone to exist without mastering the making of his existence, therefore his body and his intellect. Procreation is only an animal, mechanical act, performed by mechanical beings.
Is "the end justifies the means" a system acceptable by the house "justice"? That is, the desire for procreation and the cultural and social vision of an immortal humanity by those who exist are sufficient for the justice system to forget the true meaning of Justice, out of our sensitive and conscious humanity?
One of the basic principles of Human rights is that at birth you serve to nothing nor nobody, otherwise it is that we have planned for you the place you will occupy, as if you were only a family or social system, that is, a slave. If you serve no purpose why did your parents give birth to you?
Making a baby is a crime in itself, pure slavery, since it is manufactured for the service of the manufacturer, whatever that service: for example, to need an object to whom one asks one's love after having risked its terrestrial hell as if the Earth lacked people to love, to need a social servant, a social substitute like a baker in place of the baker, to consider itself important to the point that its genes must not disappear when we know that everything evolves, etc. To do it blindly without mastering its manufacture is an additional crime. To install it in this belligerent and unhealthy world is even more criminal.
All of this, if you are a person of Right, of course. What applies to you also applies to this person you want to make, but as an animal you are just a machine without any state of mind.
The endangering of the life of others is an offense, therefore the law prohibits this endangerment, and in the case of fabricating a living, it is an infinite endangerment compared to the total absence of danger of the “non-existence”.
I did not premeditate to live, Your Honor, my parents may have done it for me.
Why the one, who engenders and her/his social accomplices, should not have the responsibility of engendering and all that ensues which is necessarily included in this initial voluntary act?
If you pull someone in your vegetable garden and he tramples your salads, is it him or you the responsible? If a god creates the garden “Universe” and installs Adam and Eve in this garden, is it him or both humans the responsible for the damage? If you make a child and you bring him into the garden "France" (your proper Nation), is it him or you the responsible for the damage he causes?
Are you responsible, you the manufacturer, for the damage caused to the manufactured being and the non-viability of the place where you install it. Does your child, this other person, have to love and respect this place, and respect yourself, because you have decided that way?
The making of a being is not a natural right, it is a natural power, like to use its muscles to move, and since it is a power, it must be regulated. To make a child is to make a person, to add an associate to the nation, an associate that others must take into account (life, education, health, death).
The power to make a child must be democratically managed by the entire nation. To make a child is at first a risk for the child himself (and for the woman who is going to give birth). From what right do you push a person to take risks? The freedom to make a child cannot be a fair right, since it is not a freedom for that other person that is the child.
The creation of an existence serves only those that already exist, and no one is mastering this creation. Only animals fabricate an existence without asking themselves questions…
2) Compensation for a birth handicap:
The handicapped child was conceived voluntarily. The risks are known, everybody knows them. Disabled children are born every day.
The handicapped child was thus conceived in full knowledge of the causes and effects, therefore he was deliberately handicapped by his parents and without any precaution, without that society, which legislates in all fields, cares the least bit about this constancy to fabricate disability, whereas there is no need to manufacture the slightest living being.
The handicapped child was thus conceived in full knowledge of the causes and effects, therefore he was deliberately handicapped by his parents and in the absence of any precaution, without that society, which legislates in all fields, cares the least bit about this constancy to fabricate handicap, whereas there is no need to manufacture the slightest living being.
While the act of procreation, this blind and random manufacture of a sensitive, conscious, intelligent, and mortal person, is the most important action for a human being who boasts of being himself conscious, intelligent, and sensitive.
You can do any kind of maltreatment before birth to the future baby the Law does not worry about. You can make it blind, quadriplegic, legless, or other ignoble tortures without any legal problems.
Your body belongs to you and the thing inside is like your liver or your lungs, you can booze and smoke as much as you like, damage all your organs, the precursor of the child including, the society stays out of that. The society just hopes that your interest goes in the same direction as its own.
But as you can give birth anonymously and get rid of the supernumerary organ once naturally expelled, your benefit in the viability of the Thing is not really demonstrated. The society relies on statistics, as a good player, to earn a little, but constantly.
Do disabled people have the right to require and call the heads, of those responsible for their daily miseries and sufferings? Why no ? Are not the creators of existences free?
If they are free, it is because they have voluntarily thrown their own child into this earthly hell, do not tell me that they did not know that disability was not a known alternative, a lottery, that they did not know that this insane draw lots could not happen to the person they made blind!
We are no longer to the first defect of birth. There is no longer any surprise about these physical or mental impairments, it is every day that the blade falls on the head of "thousands" of babies.
What could have accomplished this person if it had been endowed with the capacities of the best of us? You must imagine Mozart and what you should have owed him if you had made him incapable of accomplishing his work. You must consider Einstein and imagine what you would have owed him, if you made him incapable of thinking.
You must imagine the best of all athletes, the most intrepid of the adventurers, the most gifted of artists, the most extraordinary of inventors, and see the child whom you have conceived disabled, as one of those geniuses whose wings you cut off from birth. Repay it. Repair it. Compensate him to the measure of his suffering and of the lack to achieve.
Under what right can a person decide in place of others, of its sufferings, its death, or even its hell? Under what right can a person take the unilateral decision to fabricate the existence of another simply, but also, the height of sadism, to make it exist, whatever the consequences for him?
Society ! Indemnifies this person to exist for your service, but unable to fulfill his potential dreams because you have launched its manufacture without mastery and without shame for the only need to replace your partners who die after a useless life in your service and very often miserable in addition.
Society ! Remember your deaths in world wars, count down the suffering in all your hospitals, count your unemployed, your strikers, your demonstrators.
If you handicapped a person during his or her life, through an involuntary but predictable result, you have committed a reckless crime. This applies very accurately to the birth handicap.
The procreation is supposed to be voluntary and its action very frequently leads to a handicap for the person, who is procreated sightless, without any mastery, and quite randomly.
The risk is known, expected from a very long time. Thousands of daily examples of birth disability are visible to everyone. No one is trapped. You, parents, are aware of the risks involved upon other, your own child. You are a criminal through recklessness, even when no apparent disability occurs in the days following birth.
The disability can be genetic and manifested during the life of your child. It is not because you run this risk yourself that you have to put at risk others. Your child is not you, it is not a reproduction of you (two), it is not your continuity, it is another person.
If you and the accomplice society agree to manufacture a handicapped person, compensate him for that existence which you voluntarily messed up, for it is never obligatory to impose the existence on anyone.
Law of Retaliation : A person forced to exist in suffering all his life (or a part), may it cause suffering on the father and mother and society as much as it has suffered? If I am made blind by my mother a minute after my birth the law of retaliation applies, but if I am made blind before I am born (if I am born blind) the law of retaliation does not apply, why?
Everyone is put at the world, to be a full member of the society. It is made for that purpose, for this particular purpose while having the right to choose its society freely, the Human Rights specify in the first article with "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". How do you compensate her/him for not being able to take his place as a member when he/she is born or when she/he becomes disabled?
Retroactive Will: I forbid you to fabricate my existence, whatever it is, whatever the body, whatever the intellect, whatever the environment, whatever the place and the time. I do this ban retroactively because, what you have done and done wrong, you cannot undo it.
And since this act cannot be defeated or repaired, I want to be compensated for all the misdeeds you have committed against me. I want you to compensate my fears, my ill-being, my misery, my suffering, and all the crimes you have committed on me, especially endangering, unequal treatment, and slavery.
3) Impossibility of free will:
What is the use of a trial in our social justice system? First, it serves to separate two parties who are opposed, these two parties may be: the accused of an offense or crime, facing a representative of the society.
The investigators are social, the accused's lawyers are social, the accusers are social, the judges are social, so they are all representatives of society against an accused trained (badly or even very badly) by society as well.
Accused whose manufacture of existence has been approved by society, whose body and intellect are the result of this uncontrolled and above all non-desired fabrication, by the accused himself, whose education is ordered by the society, therefore at no time the accused is a master of what concerns him/her since she/he is not a master of what initiates her/him and the capacities that are provided to him/her without anyone knowing anything of that, barely the initial copulation which engendered him/her.
(Is someone masters of the automaton that is his brain? I would like to know the method.) So such a trial is, first of all, a search for the truth. The society accuses a person of having contravened laws that the society has set up itself.
A person whom the society has forced to exist and attempts by itself to format to its own system, which works globally, but never finely and especially if one does not look after it carefully, which is the case very often. Many children are illiterate by reaching their majority. Broadly speaking, society accuses of bad behavior the human machine it has fabricated and regulated itself.
But try to accuse society, this other party in the trial, of falsehood, perjury, sleaze! Yet society has never demonstrated the existence of free will!
Should not the search for the partial truth, that of the individual, be contained in a search for general truth that of our functioning as a human machine without free will, to which one imposes to exist, therefore without any responsibility?
We are sensitive, conscious machines, with a lot of information processing capacities and degrees of freedom, but we are no less machines because without free will, and above all, the height of all this judiciary absurdity, we are each of us forced to exist in the social demand itself.
The second goal of the society is that this trial serves as a means of self-learning for other social who are tempted to violate the laws, but since the time that humans are threatened with prison and death, nothing has ever changed. Why ? Because educating people is not made on the good model of people.
Humans are not of divine origin, but of a mechanical universe and possess no free will. The education of these two totally different beings cannot be identical.
Human beings are all forced to exist as any living being, but our intelligence understand it more or less consciously, and many of us react to this constraint of existence by social rejection in different ways.
Do we have the right not to accept the fate imposed on us in a society which calls itself anti-slavery and which has even made it an imprescriptible crime? Of course, since society itself affirms it and encourages resisting any form of dictatorship. Parents and society are dictators and will always be, whatever they say, and whatever love and repent they have afterwards.
What would you think if robots makers of other robots in their image, sent them to jail for defects of behavior, by telling them that they are being punished, because they did not do what their software and data commanded them to do ? I guess you would reply that manufacturers would do well to revise the bugs they made by programing their "kids" robots…
If you change the electrical or electronic wiring of your car and you have an accident, the insurance will not work, you will be liable.
By talking to me, you change the wiring of my neurons, so you become responsible for my actions! This is especially true with a child that you have conceived and educated from A to Z yourselves or society. The problem is human incompetence in these areas, conception and education!!!
We are, us humans, even as machines, able to read the panel, "free will, change of direction". The impossibility of free will is not incompatible with this change of direction. We must do it and review the whole educational system in which each person's life depends that of society, and the future of humanity on the planet if it has one.
The least of humanism is to understand as accurately as possible what we are. ("If I understand, they will understand" is a rationalist and honest maxim.)
Where does the block to any radical change in society come from? From the richest. They do not want social changes to lead to the loss of their nabob way of life, while they exist and their direct descendants, it is a deeply animal behavior. And since they have the means to pay lobbies, nothing resists them.
That is why I propose to rely on the honesty of a "small" judge whose judgment will be a case law. Maybe we could even find some people ready to learn the job of judge in order to pass one of these laws! Ten years of learning is short for such a goal.
It is society, through the members that are my parents, who thrown the manufacture of my body, it is it who configured it by education, how am I responsible for its operation, since you did not make me with a free will? It is not the peremptory affirmation that I possess a free will which will give me one.
If for the free will the principle of precaution has been reversed, why not do the same with telepathy: "I am a telepath, Your Honor," said the lawyer, "this man is innocent, I read him in his mind, I guarantee it without invoices."
We are responsible before the law only if there is free will. Does it not seem important to you to know officially whether free will exists? Has the government asked that this research be done scientifically? Has the legislature and the Justice officially requested that research on free will be carried out?
Has the (french) CNRS or any other official scientific body done any research on the subject? It is a technological research that belongs to scientific researchers and not to philosophers. If the research has been done, the results belong to us. I want to know about these results. I want to be able to discuss them.
I want to know the arguments used by the legislator to make his laws and those of Justice to punish people and afford to lock them out of the world between four walls in conditions that are always unacceptable.
Above all, it does not serve any purpose whatsoever for society or for those who are locked up, who have not asked to be born, and have been educated to a great extent by society which allows itself to punish them without correcting itself, even.
By refusing to recognize the impossibility of free will, the house "Justice" is Out-of-science, that is, Out-of-knowledge and therefore Out-of-reason… the house "Justice" is outside moral justice.
About 96% of criminals are men (and 100% of manufacturers of criminals are women). Does this mean that men are more prone to crime than women? Or does it mean that men's behavior is more criminalized than that of women?
Is not the greatest human crime to put a child in the world into unacceptable living conditions, in a world where so many criminals and so many victims are deliberately fabricated?
Humans think that all the functionalities of our bodies, and therefore our thoughts, are identical between human beings, for example our wills, our desires, our emotions, would be identical, and even a kind of control function (free will) that would be identical in all humans, behavioral control of desire, emotions, etc.
It is rather bizarre reasoning. Still an invention of the believers: the divine software is perfect, all humans are equal before their mental capacities and their understandings, and therefore the duty and whatever their age, since we are all part of humanity fixed in a type of man and woman, since Adam and Eve.
What is a prison? A place where the type of society found there is even more stupid than the society that established it. The person sent there may not get to learn to love the previous society, the one that forced him to exist to undergo this hell.
The victim complains about the criminal, but does she/he complain about the society that allowed the criminal to execute its crime and allowed him to develop by his laxity in education?
Today (as tomorrow), on Earth, more than 800 women are condemned without trial to die for fabricating existence, their only crime is to simply be incompetent to procreation.
Today (as tomorrow), on Earth, thousands of babies are condemned without judgment to be handicapped by complicit nations, which is more horrifying than an Islamic Sharia, since these babies have committed no other crime than to exist at the request of others and societies which condemn them all their lives to this burden.
If there was only one question, that all those who want to produce a new existence should ask themselves, it should be this one:
“Now that I have fabricated a suffering being, how can I undo suffering?”
Dead end
E. Berlherm (December 2016)
