Legislative Dictatorship vol_2 – The Er_ased Individual

A. And?!: The state possesses one characteristic, accumulated through experience: the more the individual and their rights are oppressed within the state, the more the ruling tier justifies it with the "public good." When the individual does not stand at the center of the state, at the center of legislative activity, the concepts of "public," "common," and all related synonyms intrude.
B. And then?!: The purpose of any state should be that the individual is fulfilled with rights, protected, and realized. It is impossible for a state to be successful if, within its legislative space, in the law, in the court, and simply everywhere, the individual is not at the center, regardless of what kind of individual it is. Someone might ask here, "What does a successful state mean?" The question is correct and even necessary; consequently, the individual also must have an answer to what a successful state means to them.
C. Where does success take place?!: Does a successful state imply a "just society"? A "just order"? "Democracy as a synonym for justice"? "The well-being of the ruling elite"? These questions are not about everything, and the answers are about nothing, just as ultimately the core meaning gets lost in salon conversations; this is a direct and important question: what does the individual mean by a successful state, and generally, to consider an individual as an individual, must we ask them this?
D. The Law and the Individual:
D.a. Nothing new - No knowledgeable or willing person can write anything new regarding how the law affects the individual; at the same time, every individual's encounter with the law is unique. It seems so simple, yet how different is each person's relationship with an order or law established by someone else. The state creates the law to ensure its execution, but does the necessity for this or that law exist? Demand determines supply—this simple truth of the market economy applies here too, but it collapses when there is no demand while supply is excessive. To put it simply, does the individual know the purpose of the law? Or should they know?
D.b. New "criminals" - Generally, we intellectuals, and especially lawyers, have managed to create a separate caste in every country; we have a separate so-called "slang," as if we possess the truth of the universe, and we explain to the ordinary (though everyone is extraordinary) citizen with a thousand foreign words why this or that law must be executed. Ultimately, the individual, who does not even know about their rights, becomes the plaything of any lawyer. In order that subsequently this individual does not find themselves powerless before lawyers, or knowing they cannot compete in conversation, the individual completely disconnects from legislative activity and remains where "the righteous rest." The individual thinks that since "he (the lawyer) says it," it means he knows, and since I do not know, I will believe him, and so on endlessly; while the one carrying this hidden knowledge hides it, and none of us observe anything. Should we observe at all? Is observation necessary?!

E. The Individual as an Instrument;
E.a. A living instrument?! - Any instrument has one characteristic: it must be used for what it is meant for, otherwise, the instrument is no longer an instrument. For some, the law is an instrument for managing the state, though in reality, the law is merely a legal phantom that is born in people and lives there, like the past. The primary instrument of the state is, and will be, the human being as an individual. The individual is an instrument for the state, but to manage this instrument, one must invent "necessary" and/or "unnecessary" additional levers. In legislative activity, any action is directed towards turning the individual into an instrument, so that whatever the "people's chosen one" says from the parliamentary tribune, the individual begins to repeat. As an example, it is enough to ask: where in legislative activity is the place of the "individual" as the center? The creation of the constitution was a step taken towards the individuality of the individual, but legislative activity, which is different in every state, ensured that the individual became distanced from the legislative process.
E.b. The instrument must obey!! - They passed some law, invented some law, introduced or did some law, or simply the phrases "I am a law-abiding citizen." And what does law-abiding mean? Does obedience to the law mean obedience to the law or obedience to the ruling power? I always laugh when, no matter what happens, no matter what mistake the state makes, whatever overreach it commits, later some "people's chosen one" steps forward and explains it by saying "the law must be executed." Do we have a law that says "the law must be executed"? How ridiculous would a law be "concerning the turning of an individual into an individual." Mostly, people who pass the laws speak to us about the execution of the law, and when they say this, they make us believe that the law is like heavenly manna and they themselves did not pass this law;

F. The Place of the Individual;
F.a. Know your place, individual - What is the individual's place in the state? It is ridiculous to argue that any state has a desire to strive for this; moreover, any state, especially its ruling power, has the desire to race towards the opposite. Power has one characteristic: ultimately it subjugates you, just like in the Lord of the Rings, ultimately it becomes the goal you must destroy, or it destroys you and takes the place of your personality. Everyone laughs when the conversation touches upon serving with power; yet without this, any governance ultimately creates tyranny through the force of law. If you stop an average statistical individual (I do not call, nor do I wish such a name for an individual, but it is what it is) and ask what they would do if they had power, if they are honest they will say: so that they and their family, relatives, friends, etc., are well. With such a passage, "so whom to trust"? "That's how it is, I will tell mine and he will do it," etc. No matter how interesting it may be, someone will condemn this and say that they would not act that way?
F.b. And if you know your place? - I do not believe that anyone will take responsibility and say, "No, I would act differently." Consequently, for those who hold power by the force of law, this is also understandable, and for these too it is understandable; therefore, should one speak about the place of the individual in this given reality? They might listen to you, they might agree with you, but ultimately those who listen to you or expect something from you, will say of those who speak that the individual needs to reclaim their place: "He dreams" or is still small or simply "has over-philosophized," and the truth is in this (and the truth is not in this).
F.c. Every time they tell you your place, "individual" - There is truth in this, but where is the place of the individual then, if the legislative space is created or exists? For example, when an individual is forbidden the right to bear arms? The individual handed over the right to the state that only it creates the law, but what did the state do in return? (Where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by law) the individual was stripped of the right to defend themselves, left to the mercy of fate, and to this the state added to the individual: "This is in the name of the law." "I have such a job" - how many times have I heard these phrases, as if the one saying this was forced by the listener to choose this and carry this cross. A person does not complain about carrying a cross, and if you tell me you are carrying a cross, are you carrying it for me? Are you carrying it because of me? Or are you, sir, a social garbageman who must remove the garbage in my form from the settlement?

G. The Individuality of the Individual;
G.a. The individuality of the individual?! - Does the individual have the right to be an individual? And if they have this right, how does it manifest? To the first question, I suppose any individual will have an answer that this is a simple truth: everyone has the right to be an individual. But this "has" also has a continuation: in what does it manifest? In what must it manifest that in the state "the individual is an individual"? We are not and cannot discuss the given reality here: whether they dress differently, drive a different car, have more money than others; this is not my topic of discussion, it is less important than something else. If the individual lives in a state, then in what should the individuality of the individual manifest? Any state means that in this state there is a ruler and a ruled; the rulers manage the individual. Consequently, the question arises: during this management, how does the individual prove they are an individual? Can obedience be the definition of the individual's individuality? Can the individual's disobedience be the definition of the individual's individuality?! During management, the question always arises: is this order/management just or not? Is it unjust or not? What idea does the one holding power have of the individual? And what right does the individual themselves have before the state? Or do they have any at all?

G.b. Is the individual also an individual?! - Any author who touches upon such topics has ready answers, theories, arguments, etc. But I do not consider that even if one knows it, everyone knows it, or even if everyone knows it, one knows it. So where does reality hide? I do not have an answer, but I know for sure that reality hides in reality itself. Does this mean that the individual does not even know they are an individual, and how should their place be determined? Any individual acts according to their own interests, and yes, this is how it should be; interests are what create the future. At the same time, if any interests create a union of individuals, then where exists that which confirms the individuality of the individual?
G.c. Is individuality permissible?! - For example, an individual believes that some action is permissible, while the state has declared this action punishable. Can the individual make the state change its decision? I suppose they cannot, and if they can, it means the individual believed in individuality, and because of this, either the ruler will lose power or the ruler will take revenge on the individual. If the ruler changed the decision, sooner or later they will consider that "I can no longer manage," while the individual during this time again remains alone before the state, with their individuality? I don't think so, I think rather they do not realize they are an individual. On the whole, governance comes down to this: that the individual does not feel a connection with other individuals and a union of united individuals does not occur...
H. Is Individuality in the State Also a Phantom?
H.a. Are you asking about the individual?! - If someone is reading this text, they will probably have the feeling that some ignoramus is writing, but they can't even write: they ask questions but don't write answers. Why the hell do you or I need this text if ready-made answers are not written, right? And yes, this is logical, logical also because even in faith, rules and simple tasks are given: do this or don't do this, etc. I do not consider that in these topics there should be some box or truth someone must carry in a saddlebag. In principle, nobody has such a saddlebag, and whoever did had to prove that they had this saddlebag for the individual too, but did the individual realize this? The need for answers is completely legitimate and necessary, but there are things where questions are answers and answers are questions. This is exactly how it is (at least for me), that the question and answer are mixed together when we ask: "Is the individuality of the individual in the state a legal phantom?" On one hand, the law; on the other hand, the state punishes the individual; and on the third hand, there is only one place to prove your individuality, and even its laws, i.e., how the court should act, its rules of conduct are regulated by the state itself;

H.b. The Individual and the Court - It is an amazing circle when, on the one hand, the instruction for punishment and the means of escaping this punishment were established by the state itself. I wonder why? Is it not because the individual has no right to be an individual? Is it not to fence in the individual's grazing area? They want a good car? Let them have it. They want good clothes or something else that underlines their status and makes them feel like an individual (clothes, not rags; this is not peasant language, this is the language we speak). But what is most valuable in order to prove whether they are an individual—for this you must not give them the opportunity. Therefore, the instruction from the dictate: invent tens of thousands of new rules of conduct, where, no matter how absurd this rule of conduct is, by it you confuse the individual so much that in the end they simply say, "I want to rest," and in this, the state ultimately wins. In principle, what state—the ruling power—and finally we hear from the people's chosen one from a high tribune, "We are doing this again for the individual," and this individual also believes it, and if they don't believe it, what other way do they have? That, that...
H.c. As if Individuality - As if it is far to final answers, but nothing is near. In principle, human thought is that line which no one has checked, nor can anyone check. Even philosophy straightens these lines, but even its own line is not straight. Therefore, it is a legal phantomness when thought asks you for peace; it is born where necessity demands a real, logical, and mandatory conclusion. What will one individual change? The answer is simple: one will change nothing, but will one individual and a second individual change things? Or should they? For whom do you want to disturb the comfort zone? Increasing or curtailing the rights of one causes the increasing or curtailing of another's, and then look between them for, as they say, the "golden mean"...

I. The Individual in Time and Space;
I.a. Law in Time (and not Time in Law) - The philosophy of law is characterized by one important oddity: it can talk about everything, but when it is being written, it ignores reality, or if it notices it, it remains merely philosophy and not the philosophy of law. How it should be applied or by what rule it should be applied—works on this are rare or cannot be found. In the Soviet Union, teaching karate was banned because it was considered legal to do so. A simple question arises: why did this tyrannical state ban karate? There might be many reasons, but I still think that the state feared the individual might learn self-defense against it, while it managed to justify this ban with the reason that we must protect the interests of others: if others do not know karate, then they will be subjugated by those who do know this karate, etc. It seems absurd, but when the person writing this was born, this law was in effect. Consequently, some meaning or some legality gets lost in time and space; it gets lost because the time in which this or that prohibition may exist belongs to that time, and this time subsequently determines the future, and in the future, this prohibition might even be absurd.
I.b. Law in Space (and not Space in Law) - With equal success, the norm was the death penalty, exile, dekulakization, etc. From today's perspective, this too was unjust, but it was legal. However, time compressed these ideas in space within the individual and delivered its verdict that this is unacceptable. So, is there any kind of recipe that indicates that in the future today's rule of conduct will not be looked at in the same way? The punished are recognized as victims, while no one will remember the creators of this. I scarcely believe in karma, etc. This is not the goal of the seeker of law or the author of questions, however, if the rule of conduct back then was acceptable, will today's be acceptable for the future? Since no one knows this, and if no one knows, then is the present day just? Or is today's rule of conduct established for the individual mandatory to fulfill? Of course, the people's chosen one will state about this that the law must be executed, and they would have said the same years ago when people were exiled or shot—that is understood anyway. The most interesting thing is whether this change was again caused by the individuality of the individual, their consciousness, their struggle, or simply, as everyone loves to justify everything: those were the times, now it's a different time.
I.c. Give me an answer!!! - I do not have an answer; in principle, I highly doubt anyone has an answer. More likely, we might reach safety by following questions, to that place where the individual needs power for individuality, needs it to calm down or simply explode as an individual for a successful state.

J. The Power of the Individual;
J.a. Does it exist?! - What can the power of the individual be when they do not have the means of direct and/or indirect influence on the law or its enactor? The fact that an individual might ask questions or dislike something is not a means of influence; it is the same phantom in which they themselves exist. I think power is more in the truth, and truth is the realization that the individual is without power, and at the same time has the only source of power—this is truth. And truth has one characteristic: it is bitter, and we rarely accept it as a given. As befits thinking beings, we create a different truth, any truth except the one that is reality, and finally, when the real and the necessary or the invented do not match each other, we create illusions that the individual has power.
J.b. The First and Last Step - The first step of realizing power by the individual is that they have no power over anything, including their existence that awaits in the future regarding the law. And right from here the question should be born: should they have it? And if they have it, what will change? And if they don't have it, what changes? And, finally, is it necessary to return this power to them? Or must they live by a rule established by someone else?! By that which was not invented by them; if this is not their outcry or it is not necessary for them, then what does it amount to? It is more important than returning or not returning... These secondary issues end where the first questions not only haven't been asked, but talking about them is considered foolishness, and I suppose will be considered so for a long time.

K. The Way Out for the Individual - The way out? This "little" piece written here is not about that. For a way out, people listen to the "people's chosen ones," while those who think about a way out remain where they remain, on paper, or simply their questions find the appropriate soil and there, sooner or later, they turn into ideas or do not turn into them. Until then, the ring of that power has devoured everyone and will devour everyone, until the union of individuals agrees that this ring is a burden, which its bearer must destroy every time they make a decision for the sake of their individuality. As for the rest, if we ask the philosophy of law, "It cannot be otherwise," but this is written by those who, had they had power, nobody knows what they would have done. Because every individual in every state has seen countless times that power is ultimately what every individual wants; rare are those who defeat it...