The Fall of the Roman Empire is a convenient myth, espoused by those who promote the idea of progress (Time Marches On): We, in the 21st century, are more sophisticated, they say, literate, educated, just; our colliseums (stadiums) have referees on the field; we don't conquer other lands, enslave (illegal immigrants), crucify or torture.
I'm here to tell you that nothing has changed regarding Alpha-male empires. Since the dawn of man, rulers, deep in the inner sanctums of their fortresses, have had to deal with two internal issues: one, Circus Maximus (entertainment pacifies the masses) and, two, what to do with the mob. And every step along the way, the law-man/soldier, was standing by. Rome, by any other name, whether 2,000 years ago or just yesterday, is still Rome, to me.
Back in college, I was taught that at times Roman magistrates would post laws so high up on columns that no one could read them. Ignorance of the law, even if illiterate, was no excuse then, as it is today. The Public Duty Doctrine is one of those laws; it's not high up, but, rather disguised and buried so deep in case law that you'd have to be an olympic gymnast, mentally, to figure it out. (Example: The Public Duty Doctrine does not state what the public's duty is, but rather what government's duty is not. This doctrine is interpreted from government's point of view).
There is a pyschological condition, which develops within the mind of the citizenry, which I like to call "Abuse Bonds," in which the victim starts to identify with the abuser, jailer, guard. Researchers have studied survivors of Nazi concentration camps, and found that prisoners knew the history of their guards: wive's and children's names, news from back home, etc, etc, etc. Today, police shows on television serve as a surrogate for this condition. I will talk about this later on in future issues.
Rome's ability to enforce its laws and policies rested with its military. Nothing has changed, here in the 21st century, except we have more specialized subdivisions of expertise in "managing the herd."
The soldier of Rome is not so much different from the police officer of today. They were young, more than likely unemployed, naive, adventurous, "bullet-proof", wanting to "be" someone of consequence, to belong. Wearing the uniform meant you arrived. Nothing has changed.
I have every reason to believe that most young people join law enforcement/government with the best of intentions -- that is, to help, to guard, to protect, to hunt down perpetrators, to keep predators in check. I also believe that the luster fades quickly, as they (new recruits: fresh meat) learn that their role is not to protect & serve, but to maintain law & order.
Realizing too late, as he has already committed himself to the program, with parents watching from the sidelines, this new revelation creates a "We versus They" mentality: the public cannot be trusted and/or "We represent the state, not the victim. The victim is merely a witness, more times than not unreliable."
I believe, as the law-man matures, he acquires a dislike for the general public. He puts his life on the line every day, and the general public marches on, in a dreamlike, uneducated state, taking it all for granted, demanding of law enforcement that which they cannot legally provide.
Disclosing The Public Duty Doctrine, systemically, will actually change this situation. I believe "government and its agents" and the general public will develop a mutual respect and a mutually-inclusive mission. We need to move on from an adolescent status quo to the next step of our civil evolution.
Until then, Rome lives and, sadly, abuse bonds!
And with that, I rest my case, for a while.
No comments:
Post a Comment