S05E14 The end of control

The celebration of the cancelation of regulatory agencies

I’m missing something here. I made a note to myself to remember “celebrate the closing of control agencies”, it took me a moment to recall what I meant by that, that note is only a couple of days old, then I think it came back to me.

The new executive administration of the US government has spent the first months of its mandate working on something that looks in part like a general deregulation of the country. As far as I can tell, this “deregulation” part involves the dismantling of a number of “agencies” that were in place to make sure that bad actors don’t do bad things to regular people.

But, of course, there is a problem with the general concept of “bad actors”, perhaps always has been. It’s really hard to identify “bad actors” nowadays. What has been prohibited by the powers that be has been reworked several times and where smoking a joint might have made you a bad actor a decade ago, now stealing state secrets, or even just nonchalantly sharing them on the phone simply highlights your ability to get away with doing whatever you want to do.

From my years as a proud “question authority” tin button wearer, especially during my years as a New Yorker in the early ‘80s, I developed the belief that most of what government considers “legislation” is actually a series of rules that mainly prohibit the “people” from engaging in certain activities. Of course, when I say the “people”, I am not only referring to citizens, but also to entities that are made up of citizens, like corporations, religious organizations, educational institutions and the like.

So, soon after Timothy Leary uses LSD to support whatever was going on in his head that would lead, in part, to the “question authority” meme, LSD is deemed “illegal”. Naturally, it was not the LSD itself that was the main problem, it was the fact that a certain segment of the “people” were using LSD in a recreational fashion while at the same time making things uncomfortable for those in authority to keep doing whatever they wanted to do, which at the time was called Vietnam. LSD was making middle-class, mainstream white youth see things in a different way, a flower-in-the-barrel-of-the-rifle way, so that substance must be prohibited.

The same story could be told about another one, marijuana. This past Christmas, a teen nephew of mine asked me why marijuana was illegal. I started telling him the history behind the prohibition and the consequential world-wide belief that marijuana use was dangerous at worst, just plain bad at least, but my mate heard me say the word “marijuana” and made me shut up on the spot. Were his sister, the nephew’s mother, to hear me talking that way about marijuana, well, fan would promptly be hit with shit.

So, I’ve not got a lot of use for a lot of legislation that is meant to keep people from doing stuff that they want to do, with the caveat that that thing that the person wants to do is something that is not harmful to those around that person. I mean, the silly 10-point list that Christians swear by, well 8 of those 10 are “thou shalt nots”, so it’s not all that odd that a self-governing philosophy created by Christians would follow suit and make sure that the rules being made are at least 80% prohibitive.

On the other hand, there are certain things that seem to need prohibiting, and mainly because, were they allowed, permitted, they would end up doing harm. Even in that 10-point list, some of those “thou shalt nots” are aimed at harmful actions: murder and theft, for example. Adultery and coveting, those are a bit more ambiguous in terms of harm doing, and having an alternative god, maybe marijuana or LSD, well that’s kind of a personal choice in my opinion, not subscribes to the “faith” doctrine.

So, regulations that have been put in place to “protect” the people from harmful actions that will be committed by bad actors, those types of prohibitions are there, will be there, as long as we believe that there exist bad actors willing to carry out those actions. For some reason, we have to have legislation that protects us from bad actors putting stuff into our foodstuffs that could make us sick, as long as that list of prohibited stuff doesn’t include sugar and palm-seed oil. Or how about regulations that are supposed to prevent those bad actors from dumping toxic byproducts near our sources of drinking water. Or legislation preventing those bad actors from letting their workers get injured or killed as long as, up to the point of injury or death, they have contributed to the bottom line.

I personally think the problem is less the terrible things that those bad actors are willing to do for whatever, usually egoistic or narcissistic motivations, than that we have bad actors in the first place that we must control through prohibitionary legislation. I also think the problem is even less the existence of bad actors and more the way in which those bad actors, despite prohibitions, continue to act in a bad fashion, as if those prohibitions only apply to those who are not clever or rich enough to pay someone to argue that they do not apply.

I mean, what’s the point in prohibiting something if someone can get away with it anyway? Didn’t anyone besides me see that movie, what was it called, Reality? We’re back to that man who somehow managed to convince just the right faction of the “people” to give him the job of Chief Executive twice. It was actually certain details surrounding his first “win” that catalyzed the main character to carry out the incident portrayed in Reality. That character, a translator who worked for the government, took secret information from that government and shared it with the press who then asked the government if that information was valid. This time the problem was called Russia, Russia, Russia. That translator was arrested at once, within a year was tried, spent years in jail, just got out from under supervision in November of last year, 2024.

And yet the star of a real reality, the guy who has turned the entire Executive branch into an embarrassing reality, he takes boxes of stuff home with him, shares it with whoever he feels like, gets caught and does not spend a single day punished for those actions, well, the actions are bad, the guy is a bad actor, the excuses offered were poor and weak, the case was strong, the judge was, well, let’s just say Aileen Cannon, yet not a single day of punishment. So, what’s the use of prohibiting the misuse of government secrets if that prohibition only has consequences for a targeted part of the “people” while those who are participating in the social construct of governing are free from consequences? Signal.

This is actually not new, but it is much more brazen in these times. Again, I was just becoming politically aware as Nixon was getting drunk in the Oval Office, weeping and begging Kissinger to kneel down and pray with him, claiming immunity for any action as President, “If the President does it, it is not illegal.” Yet, somehow, that construct popularly known as “government” was able to make Nixon see the possible consequences if he continued to be a bad actor. Such is not the case now. No one, no one at all, is able to make the current one see the consequences of his actions. And honestly, he doesn’t give a flying fuck anyway.

So, why are his minions so hell-bent on destroying the regulations that prohibit bad actors from doing bad things? Don’t they expect to stay in office forever anyway? Despite controls meant to keep baby formula bacteria free, that bacteria finds its way into the formula, someone didn’t follow the clean-up rules. Despite laws and regulations that prohibit the dumping of toxic shit near our sources of drinking water, we get a Flint Michigan. Despite laws and regulations that prohibit buying elections, we get Super-PACs and grotesquely wealthy, mentally unstable, drug-altered maniacs purchasing important governmental positions for themselves. Despite the prohibitions on marijuana and LSD, I’ve used both in my lifetime, as have hundreds of thousands of other people, some getting caught and punished, the majority just getting away with it because they were more careful or their skin was of a lighter hue.

I’m not advocating for the destruction of the at-best weak safeguards that prohibitive legislation offers us. It is all too clear that the concept of “bad actor” is here to stay, we are very far, as a “people” from not needing to control ourselves, to keep our worser devils under lock and key. What we should be doing, though, in the meantime, is to try to get our heads around the concept that there is no reason whatsoever for one member of that group known as “people” to not face the same consequences as another member of that group known as “people”. Good for the goose people, good for the gander people.

Accountability is the operative word. If we are willing to carve out exceptions for such arbitrary reasons such as melanoma saturation in the complexion, number of digits in the balance of the bank account, accidental falling out of the proper uterus in the proper geographical location, while the same type of arbitrary reasons are proffered for those who do not merit exceptions, then there is no such thing as accountability. And while the idea that punishment deters bad actors from acting badly is just another test of faith, we do need to be consistent in punishing those who have acted badly, that is kind of the basis of justice.

Won’t be holding my breath while waiting for that to occur. Some of us will get away with our bad actions. Some of us will get caught. Some will shout out “it’s not fair”, usually the some who are making the entire circus unfair by getting away with shooting someone on 5th Avenue while, well, just while.

Cheers,
revel.

Podcast: you’re listening to radio revel