Have Faith

Have faith that the Law is inherently benevolent because as much as it is cruel, it is inherently benevolent. That's my faith

The way of Culture v.03b

Culture is not always bad but when it changed it's culture, for me this is a traitor. When people used law to go against humanity, the case could be made against it based on the law. It might be in the form of constitution or the basic law that's fundamental of every other laws. Also when its "lawful" to be evil, such as slavery, such is obvious and again the case could be made against it.

When cultures clashed, they went like wind and could form tornadoes. If the culture was eating chicken and suddenly it turned to cannibalism it was the culture because it were the people. Yes those who still ate chicken kept the previous culture, but the very people who were, then became, were the very people of the "new culture" therefore carried with them were our faiths. 

Without Law reliance on Culture is relying on a traitor. The heart of people is none of our businesses (not property of others)

Order to address Concerns

 A centralized government doesn't have to create laws all the time. They could make public a document of order to address concerns that should be followed up by the regional administrators.

Example:

- Regional administrators must create rules that address following concerns:

Concern 1. In order to strengthen the institution of marriage, a spouse should be able to receive government help in punishing and seek damages from the other spouse in the case of promiscuity.

And then the regional administrators would act in the wisdom of their own contexts, the public could review and raise criticism or endorsements of the approach used by the government and experts could also professionally audit and review orders issued by the regional administrators. 

Concern 2. To care so that irresponsible members of the public couldn't raise cases randomly and abuse this power. 

Concern 3. To care that there are special cases or traditional cultures that would vary the definition of promiscuity. Governments need to preserve such definitions without allowing ways to bypass the order. 

Concern 4. That there's a clear expected punishment in respect.

Concern 5. To protect children from predators

Concern 5a. To be careful of the definition of children and the definition of child predators. Shouldn't make innocent people liable to be subject of the ruling

Concern 5b. To allow for prompt protection, prevent red tapes on this matter

Concern 5c. While giving access to enforcement for social media cases, to care so that the quality of privacy online wouldn't be reduced or damaged, while still be able to pierce through predators' veils of anonymity.

etc 

Accurate Articulation is significant and important

I've made a post in my other blog melkieh.blogspot.com, about me trying to make sense of the credit scheme in the current commercial banking. 

https://melkieh.blogspot.com/2022/07/me-imaginary-banker.html

To go further here I'd like to note that terms and contexts are important. Just because something works the same doesn't mean that it is the same thing. How do we label things is going to influence the implications that comes with it. In this case for example, the taxing is going to be different. Also if we wanted to trade the security in the secondary market it's possible if we label it under this banner. Breaking apart a collateral into shares and then spread the ownership through the market while the government taxing every transactions 0,1% or lower is entirely possible as an alternative to land/building acquisition taxes.

This also another reason against talking indirectly while lying. If you wanted to bring upon what you're innuending into the black on white official realm, it's going to take a lot of accuracy. In fact innuendos are insults to accuracy, it's a minus accuracy. Why would you challenge the spirit of accuracy like that. 

People are crazy strong and brain powered above the brim. As for me let me not add that extra difficulty please. 

Have Law Have Life

Systemic wound v.04

Unpaid overtime is a term that is getting more and more spotlight nowadays. The increasing number of cities and businesses, increasing number of working people intensified the relevance of this issue. 

For one I'm always for the spirit of entrepreneurships and often times 8-5 couldn't cover the dynamics of the reality of commerce. Sometimes 12 hours everyday for a week is what it takes, sometimes for a month, sometimes only 3 hours per day would suffice and it's different throughout the year for most of the cases (I bet). 

The problem is the law up the stakes on this 8-5 "working hours" idea by giving overtime rules, overtime payments. While idle moments within the 8-5 during idle seasons were not reducable. This causes dissatisfaction among people apart from the stress contributed by the long hours. 

My solution for this is not complete but I think is good:

Separate the concept between the problem of extra efforts and extra commitment and property sacrifices. 

1. Extra hours means extra toil on the body, that's a health problem, stamina problem, 

2. Expected overtime is a contractual problem, property problem, sovereignity problem, that's a different source of stress and rejections, internal conflicts

3. Expected overtime if it was a culture then it's a constant attack towards the law. So number two above is a problem for individuals, while this is a problem of the mass (area of effect damage). 

So you see if you're a gamer, this spell has different attack types: Physical, Magical, Unit, AOE, all at the same time. 

I want to focus on the AOE damage. The law is hurt by this, it's better for people to not be employee, all entrepreneurs rather than being "protected" by the law while actually are not protected. 

This going to reduce people's willingness to participate in the law, in the society, because they provided them with no hope, also reduce the credibility of the law as a whole encouraging business practices that circumvent the law rather than working together with the law. 

So what I'm saying is, rather unintuitively, just freeze that rule. Don't apply it, not don't enforce it because it's usually already is and that's the problem, but statutorily freeze the rule until different developments took place in the society. 

If the people no longer experience constant disrespect towards the law happening in their lives, then the credibility would start to improve, and then there's going to be a chance to actually implement something that works later. 

Next my solution also would be, stop micromanaging the workforce. The government is a centralized institution, it could not possibly know everything in the world. While businesses flow with innovation and blind spots and margins and all kinds of stuffs that are unique in perspective. That's how entrepreneurs were successful, and when it's not then the businesses were not really entrepreneurship but a manifestation of lack of competition.

What about the minimum wage? What about the rights of the blue collars? 

The blue collars get their income from companies, companies get their income from customers, could companies said to the customers "You must shop in my shop minimum once a week?" or "When you stopped shopping and we must close you must pay us parting compensations?". Wait, wait, I do believe that being underpaid is bad, but the solution is not that because "that" is a blanket policy from people who don't know what's happening. The solution must be tied to gross profit, and it applies not only to workers or people but also to companies: "Don't sell below gross". Plus usually we went after the seller not the buyer, but meh, context. 

Now back to the systemic wound, we just can't have the law keep on being violated like this and think it's fine. The manifestation is to the people, to the workers, to the way businesses are being conducted, to the credibility of the law, and the relationships between people. I'm talking about discrimination, hatred, abuse, racism, etc. How? The law is a collection of solutions out of problems of the past, thousands of years of evolution. When the name of the law was tainted, the inclination of the people are going to start to reinvent the wheel, but instead of getting to the right solution which is to create a rule that is written, formulated, articulated, they were going to had to do something else... because that's the law and they've lost hope with the law. 

So the problem is not with the spoken word itself but in the lack of care of it, and it has been going on for a looooooong time. But people mistake it with the fault of the law, no... it's the lack of participation and care for the law, you.... you... you are also part of the problem. And me too

Directing the Evolution of the Law v.03e

The Law other than being a legacy from the people before us is also an infrastructure created in the face of novel problems of the corresponding eras. Initially we would expect a formulation of the law that is extensive and convoluted. What I don't like about this is that it seems that people are accepting this as a norm such as that that's the way the Law is normally. 

We want to return the law to the base state; countries have their constitutions that are simpler, easier to understand, and then from there the development of the other lower ranked laws. We want the law to always be improved towards being short and simple and then further developed into specifics. So don't stop with a "good enough" law, the law is an evolving organism that's why it could accommodate life. 

What I mean by this is we should update the law more into general and specifics, for example the law about severance pay, it might capture the spirit of job security but we don't want to stifle new entrepreneurships. So what I would do is to erase the national application of it and replace it to target specific companies such as big companies that are competing against each other. 

The target is to have about 10 pages of law for everybody and that's it (with better quality). Really that's it, if there were still more generalizations then it's not satisfactory.

After that new laws would be specific laws in relation to each own's situations. There would be a law regarding the relationship between your family and the family of the enemy of your grandparents who defeated them in a devastating lawsuit for example. A law regarding how you as the loudest man in the world should behave in public spaces. Of course all of those should go through a just process involving concerned parties including whether or not the formulation of the law is good enough so that third parties won't have to read them in order to not break the law. 

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

One problem that I hate to see right now is that entrepreneurs that still couldn't afford severance pays and all of the other obligations are forced to be on the other side of the law. The longer we let these people there, the more the burden accumulates on them. The development of their lives would be with the development of that position. Albeit some of them are not good employers, but if you mixed them together statutorily, more and more lines between their vices and virtues would be entangled.

The great thing about the law is that it is a boundary supported by consensus (from all the people in the world, whether consciously or practically) for our asset and our personality to grow and prosper. The other side of the coin is that it's so clear that those that were condemned by it, is for sure are at the outside. 

The law is not a superstitious thing, it's an actual natural force. Some people might say it's ok to break the law or some laws don't matter, but really it's something we should fight for for the sake of our serenity and scalability further into the years of our lives. 

Company's contribution other than tax

Withholding tax administration contribution is a form of contribution to the government and to the people too (in case of salary withholding tax). So companies are not just taxed on their profit income tax etc, but also on their administrative contribution. 

I'm not saying the people don't deserve this, I'm just saying it should be taken into account too