Judgments of polycracies
Many still do not realize the polyarchy of abundant judgments since humanity built its system of laws and constituted the so-called State of Law so that, according to the contractualist theory of Jean Jackques Rousseau and his followers, such as Hegel, Thomas Hobbes, Locke stipulated a non-historical hypothesis, but extremely plausible that at a certain point in the timeline human beings formalized a set of laws which they added to the natural law defended orally and by tradition that only intended to guarantee three unique rights: the right to life itself; right to freedom of movement; right to survival.
In order to constitute this body of rights, it first established some essential requirements, such as: the authority to recognize rights in the face of a claim between two disputes; the common language; the territory of jurisdiction; obedience to the authority of the law.
Having established these prerequisites, then the written record accompanied the invention of writing and its support, which would be clay tablets, papyrus or parchment.
Knowing how to read and write was until modern times a secret initiation of the privileged few, the scribes and bureaucratic servants, ambassadors, who were the guardians of the knowledge of the community and civilization.
So, the personification of the law was the law itself, which was mentioned by the traditional leaders, the elders, the priests, later, the figure and function of the judges was created to be in charge of keeping the laws and sentencing the judicial plaintiffs.
A long past hides the origin and way of establishing what was legal; at first, tradition and religion planted the first principles of unwritten norms; the changes had as their source new ideas about laws brought by other cultures that were mixed brought by outsiders and foreigners.
Changes were slow and needed to be absorbed by heavy traditions, and needed to be introduced into people's consciences that they should heed and accept as righteous; at some point the priests appropriated exclusive control and the source of law; breaches of legal principles were dealt with with penalties such as physical mutilation, imprisonment, and execution by the death penalty or torture.
The long walk from tribal councils, from the pajé, to the sheriff of the wild west, from the courts of the inquisition, imperial edicts, to civil contracts, international agreements, treaties such as Methuem, Tordesillas, councils and condominiums, civil registries, we finally agreed to set up the civil courts of justice, and in parallel, small informal courts, such as the police station, the condominium sessions, the domains of companies that punish employees, officials, members of institutions, students of schools all under the judgment and sentence of the directors, presidents, coordinators, bosses, judgments have multiplied in such a way of diversities of judgments, that an executive of a large company needs to make hundreds of decisions in a single day, they are judgments about things, people and assets.
It would be no different to break the tradition of judgments in the new digital society of the internet bubble; soon censors appeared, fact checks that discipline us to access and use any service on social networks, we need to follow the adhesion code, and the punishments are applied by invisible judges who we don't even know where they are, censoring our texts, images, songs , responses, each post needs to be accepted and judged by the zealous and not always accredited judges of these new instances of digital courts that have added to our infinite cast of social behavior inspectors one more category of invisible and not always honest, fair, impartial and clean judges .
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário