Mind Mastery

A white haired man in his early 50’s walked onto the stage and addressed the crowd.

“Heaven high there fellow spirits, I’m Alex and I’m here to share the idea of morality and lore, not l-a-w but l-o-r-e.

The current system is just plain mad, they’ve gone and created millions of laws and it’s just become totally ridiculous.

If you cant break Lore down to a few simple ideas, you’re doing it wrong.

The Lore is as follows

1. Create no loss

2. Create no harm

3. Be honest and ethical in your dealings

4. Maintain the peace

Now, you are free to do as you please, whether you choose live by these Lores or not.

Just remember, there may be consequences.

Now I want to ask you a question, can you think of a situation that isn't covered by those Lores?

A middle aged man with a scruffy beard raised his hand.

“Yes mate, if I want to go into the national park where no one is living and I want to build a home there, will anyone try and stop me?”

‘Ok, so basically you’re asking if you are allowed to own, or have access to land you can call home in a geographical location that is normally off limits for people to live in. Is that right?”

“Yes mate”

“What’s your name please?”

“Henry” The bearded man said.

“Henry, what I think we should do in that situation is take it to a vote.

Great question by the way.

This is the perfect example of what we should do as a community for when we come across situations that need resolving.

We allow each side, the for and the against any particular issue, to present their reasoning, then we discuss, then we vote.

That’s the process I recommend for solving any problems, challenges or disputes that come our way, whether on an individual or group level.

Presentation, discussion, vote.

The 3 step strategy for avoiding conflict and creating resolutions.

Raise your hand if that sounds like a decent idea, or enough of an idea to at least build upon?”

Close to the whole room raised their hands.

“Would you be willing to build a small presentation of your reasoning why you believe you should be able to freely live in the national park Henry?”

Henry stood up and looked around the room. “Yes I would.”

“Anyone else who is in favour of supporting Henry is welcome to assist him in his presentation, if you would like assistance that is Henry?”

“Sure wouldn't mind it at all mate, the more heads we can put together to present our case, the better”. Henry sat down with a satisfied look on his face.

“Of course, if there is anyone that believes Henry or anyone else should not live in the national park, for whatever reason, please gather some time over the following weeks and formulate your own counter presentation.

Now, I want to add this part to clear any confusion. Let's say for instance we go through that process and the majority decide that we we actually want to preserve national parks as they are. 

Henry still has the right to go and live in the national park, even though we have voted against it. We wouldn't have the right to use violent force to stop him from peacefully living on vacant bushland.

Even though Henry broke a newly formed town 'rule', he didn't violate any of the Lores. If someone used violence to stop him, they would be breaking the Lore.

Obviously it would be preferable for Henry and everyone that he and anyone else who wants to live in the national park has the blessing of the peoples council, which is the voice of the community majority.

If anyone did go live in the national park against the decision of the peoples council, you have the right to do so. In accordance with the Lore I mean. If you wanted to refuse Henry entry into your business because he violated a town rule, you could. As it's your right to choose who to interact with at your business. 

Although, would that be the best way to build a peaceful and respectful society, denying someone entry to your business, just because they wanted to live on a spot of land you didn't approve of?

That's up for you to decide.

If we decided no, we don't want people living in the national park, hopefully Henry would respect our wishes.

If he still really wanted to live in a national park, he could always go to another town and persuade a different community to give their blessing for people to live in the park.

Hope I haven't put you too much on the spot Henry, I'm just trying to be thorough.

"No mate that was great, I can see it from both sides. Time will show what the outcome will be."

"That it will."

A woman stood up.

“Hi Alex, hi everyone, I’m Fiona and this is my husband Gerald.”

Gerald smiled and waved.

“We are happily married, but what if we decide to get divorced? Who decides on who keeps what and who owns what?

Gerald, pulled an animated look of surprise onto his face.

A few people scattered around the room chuckled at her ability to cut straight to the point.

“No offence of course honey, but these things do need to be discussed. What if we have children, how do we determine custody?”

Alex smiled.

“Well, I would hope as grown and responsible adults you would be able to solve such issues between yourselves.

But we know sometimes feelings are running super hot in times like divorce and outside assistance is required.

So here is what I suggest.

We build our own independent arbitration systems.

Basically a court, but not a court.

A system run by qualified and competent volunteers which cannot be influenced by money or politics.

It would be a very similar system to the above 3 step process for solving problems.

Presentation, discussion, vote.

Modern courts aren't so good for achieving justice, actually they damn right suck at it.”

Most of the crowd laughed and nodded in agreement

“But they have a few good elements we can copy and implement in our own systems.

Over time, we’ll find that more and more people will have a great comprehension of what is fair and just.

Justice should not be something only the few specialise in.

Because what is right and what is wrong often is much simpler than we have been conditioned to believe.

In our arbitration systems, we’ll need people to hear the cases.

There will be 2 unbiased judges that moderate the case and each party is able to choose their judge.

This is to ensure fairness and competency.

It’s very common nowadays for people to go into court and be dealt a judge who hasn't the slightest idea about morality.

They may be competent criminals, draining their victims of cash and sentencing then to extended periods of torture.

When it comes to justice though, totally incompetent.

I don't know what you call being locked in cage, but I call it for what it is.

It’s torture and it doesn't solve a bloody thing!”

The crowd nodded in agreement with his passionate delivery.

“So, each party is in control of which judge they would like to hear the case.

Now, we need a jury.

We can’t just have 2 judges decide on the case, especially if they disagree.

So we have a jury of 5 random volunteers to assist the process.

The two disputing parties go to the arbitration centre which is run by volunteers.

They follow the procedure of the court room and present their stories.

In today's system, most people pay an enormous amount of money for a professional lawyer to help them get punished.

Not a good system.

If you have a mouth, you can speak for yourself.

Unless you have a speech difficulty of course or for whatever reason, really do require someone else to speak on your behalf.

That should be a rarity though, not the norm.

This shifting of responsibility to speak for one self is not healthy and not helpful.

Unless you want to be a rich lawyer that is.

There is no need to be afraid when going through a dispute process like you normally would in modern court systems.

That’s because modern court systems are punishment and revenge centres, not centres for justice.

Our community led systems would be focused on the R system.

Remedy.

Resolution.

Rectification.

Rehabilitation.

We’ll aim to come to an equitable and fair outcome for both parties, doing our best to ensure it’s a win win for both sides.

The mentality of win lose is outdated and barbaric.

We are so much better than that.

Now that I mention it, we really dont even want win win. 

Think about it, where do you have winners and losers? In sport.

That's why they call it a 'court'. Because it is a sport to them, who can they make lose and how can they win.

They make it a game of competition and pit us against each other.

Even the notion of calling it win win implies the possibility that someone could have lost.

Hopefully I don't need to point out how this is the wrong mentality.

We don't want losers and we dont want winners. We want to settle and resolve disputes and crimes that have been commited. 

That's why we need to create our community arbitration centres and stop using their 'courts'.

So we can help solve problems, not create more of them.

Making a game out of playing with peoples lives is sick.

It needs to stop and it needs to stop now.

We must learn how to reach equitable and corrective solutions for everyone.

Even in serious cases like murder and rape.

Instead of saying ‘how best should we make them pay’?

We need to ask the question, why did this happen?

What trauma did that person experience to commit such a terrible act out of alignment with their true nature?

How can we make sure the society we live in does not contribute towards such negative behaviour?

What can we do to help this poor person who has murdered or raped someone?

Having a murderer pay money to the victims family will not bring them back.

No amount of compensation will change what they did.

But perhaps their mental recovery and transformation in a rehabilitation centre could offer some piece of mind.

At the very least, we wouldn't be accomplices to torture and we would be giving someone the chance to heal and become a valuable member of society.

In our current day, murderers and rapists get punished and tortured inside a cage for 20+ years and then are relseased back into the world.

Sure, they have 'paid' for their crime.

But the question is, who do you want as your neighbour?

The criminal who has just been tortured for 25 years, or the man who did something wrong because he was hurt and has now been healed and transformed into the standard of morality?

Just a quick show of hands now what you would prefer.

If you did something wrong, would you vote to be locked into a cage for 20+ years in harsh conditions?”

No one raised their hands.

“If you did something wrong, would you prefer to go to a rehab centre for however long it takes to fix whatever caused you to do something wrong? Which in most cases if we do rehabbing right, should be far, far less than 20 years.”

Many people raised their hands in support of this idea.

“What is justice if not fixing whatever caused the problem in the first place, so that it never happens again?

If it doesn’t prevent the same crime from occurring again, it’s not justice.

Why keep someone locked up for longer than necessary?

Sure someone may be locked up in a rehab centre if they murder someone, but the conditions would be very good and they would be treated with respect and if they choose to follow the rehab program, they would only need to be there for as long as it takes to heal. No longer and no shorter.

The best way to defeat an enemy is to make them your friend.

Revenge is the fuel for a vicious cycle that never ends.

It’s understandable to want to hurt someone who hurt you.

But it doesn't solve the problem of why they hurt you and it doesn't stop them from hurting you or others in the future.

Vengeance is an animalistic tendency, rehabilitation and cures are for civilised mankind. 

It depends on what you care about more, revenge, or justice?

Do you want to part of the problem or the solution?

Do you want to spiral back down to where we came from, where we are now, a cesspit of injustice?

Living worse than animals?

Or do you want to try another way?”

The crowd had serious deep looks of concentration on their faces. They had never heard anything like this before, but many of them could already feel that Alex was right. His argument was just making sense.

“I know there will still be many questions and ‘what about this and what about that’s’ but for now, I think that’s enough for one night.

I know that was a long explanation, but did that answer your question Fiona?”

Fiona had sat down by this point and had been leaning her head against Gerald’s shoulder.

She sat up straight and answered, “Yes, thank you for the thorough explanation, I’d like to have more of an input when the time comes to create our own arbitration systems.”

“Great, I’ll be glad to have your ideas contributing to the new systems.

Please give me a show of hands who enjoyed that presentation and would be interested in hearing more?”

Over half the room raised their hands.

“Beauty.

Well, I look forwards to sharing more another time and working with anyone else who is interested in expanding upon these ideas.

Thank you for your attention, I will take my leave.”

“Great thank you very much Alex for that explanation of Lore and morality. I know I sure find that system much more preferable than government legislation!

Ok, Theresa, please share what a real democracy looks like.”