The Supreme Court must be disbanded. It
is an illgical and irrational body.
I have a coworker and
a friend who earned a magnitude of respect while acting as our units
union rep. Was really one of his first acts. There was 14 or so of
us in the unit at that time. Our unit provided 24 hour immediate
response coverage. To do this, for year, maybe since the beginning
the various units had worked a “Rotating schedule”. How that
was divided up each year was dependent upon the number of people in
the unit and their seniority combined with operation need projection.
You would work different shifts, different days off, and often if
you were not looking at the schedule, you didn't know what your days
off were outside of the current pay period. I had crafted a
schedule that would have us all picking a shift and being assigned to
not only that shift, but specific days off. We voted, and this was
the schedule we were going to submit to management per our contracted
right to do so. (Ironically and earning more respect, my friend was
one of the few votes against abandoning the rotating schedule.
Partly because it meant that if you were on a day shift, you were
going to lose money on night shift differential. And yet he assumed
his role of representing the will of the unit with integrity.)
Management at the time was a typical unqualified promotion of
somebody who had “networked” their way into a management
position. Those who don't know what we do, often find relevance in
the most insignificant stances. Hers was “Personal Protective
Equipment” for stuff that we would never do in a million years. But
we had the safety gear to do it, and we were responsible for it. The
other thing was that she was going to fight to keep us on the
rotating shift schedule. So it came to “impasse” that had to be
mediated by the next level manager. My friend would account for me
later that she said after having other points shot down, “But this
is how we have always did it. I had to suffer through swing shifts. “
To which my friend responded “It was awful, don't you think it is
time to change that.” The moderator was taken by this exposed
truth and agreed. We got out straight schedule. Ironically my
friend took a promotion into a unit that is one of the few that still
does rotating shifts.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem, AKA
appeal to tradition, appeal to common practice, appeal to antiquity,
appeal to traditional wisdom, proof from tradition, appeal to past
practice, traditional wisdom. But is is also know as “stare
decisis” or “precedents”. These are logical fallacies.
Logical fallacies are not compatible to scientific discovery or
rational decision making. And yet there is a political philosophy
that leans heavily on it while at the same time saying “unfounded
belief systems (such as religions) should not dictate our policy”.
And recent events has them screaming “follow the science”.
Something they only mean when it agrees with their point of view.
There can be nothing more unscientific than clinging to a belief
because “That's the way it has always been.”
I want to
take a second here to explain the stack of logical fallacies we built
our political and belief system as westerners and Americans. First we
have the foundation of “Argumentum ad populum” or appeal to
populus or appeal to democracy. In our case 320 million idiots all
“electing” who they believe will lead them to a life of pleasure
and happiness. Which believing that to be the “goal in life” is a
flawed belief to begin with. But even if it was valid, there is no
connection between being an elected politician and the skills needed
to lead us to that state of euphoria. I can turn you onto no less
than a half dozen podcasts produced by people with experience
studying what it is that will lead us to emotional, physical, and
financial contentment is most often a complex and counterintuitive
to our “common sense”. Which means most of us have not business
picking leadership. When we do, we pick idiots that are a projection
of our own ignorance. The only thing a politician is an expert at
is.. gettting elected”. Saying the right things or being known for
not saying the wrong things to appeal to the populous who think they
are all “experts”. This is known as “Appeal to authority”.
Being granted this authority they must be experts. On top of that,
all of our laws are “checked” against this document that has been
outdated since the first decade after it was written to see if the
social regulations comply. Who are these “experts”? Are they
sociologist, psychologists, economists, ecologists, doctors, or even
accountants? F'k no! They they are lawyers. A lawyers job
description is not to find the scientific and valid answer to a
question or hypothesis. No their job description is to “represent
their paying clients position no matter how irrational or
unbelievable it is.” That is like hiring a golf pro to treat the
weeds and bugs in your yard. Like hiring a NASCAR driver to drive
your kids school bus.
So saying that a social policy must be maintained because some lawyers deemed “experts” by politicians who were elected by a few million idiots and they decided that 50 years ago is the height of irrational and illogical arguments. If you have another argument, that is fine. But “stare decisis” is not tenable. Anything that the SCOTUS “decides” is based upon bullshit stacked to the ceiling of the capital building.
Comments