Читать книгу Blind.Faith 2.0.50 - Tomasz Tatum - Страница 8

THE DREAD.COMMACHINE

This was a stunning invention, a pinnacle of near Leonardo-da-Vincian achievement. Many claimed that it was nothing short of being an absolute technical masterpiece.

The dread.commachine was awe-inspiring, not simply because of the state-of-the-art level of technology it embodied but because it represented perhaps the ultimate interface that was achievable between automation, man and the values upon which his worthy institutions were so solidly and fundamentally erected. Best of all, not only was it efficient and fully functional − it was designed to appeal to both an enlightened citizenry’s wit and its whole gamut of instincts.

It was a fantastic tool. Not only was it extremely useful in the utilitarian sense of the word but it had also proved itself to be virtuous beyond reproach. It was held in nearly universally high esteem because it had proved itself to be uniquely helpful in upholding the important social and legal ideals of a righteous society through both its ease of accessibility and its encouragement of a maximum of democratic participation. It was seamlessly interactive, an important advantage in a society in which just about everyone owned numerous telly.tubes and MindjSets. And, best of all perhaps, it was also fun and easy entertainment for the whole family.

For trivia-fans and those who were inquisitive by nature.

Or for those who were politically interested.

For the God-fearing.

And, in testimony to its versatility, it was great for everyone, even for the marginally sadistic. Or at least for those sadists who were deemed to be latently virtuous, anyhow. In truth, no one had any real inkling how many people in Libertyville@Esperantia might fall into such a category and even the leading polling agencies were in stark disagreement on this point. But, because there were no hard numbers, a consensus reigned that it wasn’t to be discounted that their number might well be high enough to perhaps be an important factor for the critical telly.tube ratings.

But overall, and this was the most important aspect, it was fantastic for those modern members of the much-lauded silent majority who rightfully and understandably had come to expect such a system to deliver good, clean, swift and efficient administration of justice. Representative polling had confirmed that a commercial break for an important word from sponsors now and then would do little to dampen their enthusiasm.

And, last but not least, it was also regarded as a monumental achievement for those who expected the administration of justice to be not only totally efficient but one hundred percent guilt-free as well.

After all, there exists nothing that is more poisonous for the collective self-esteem of a modern enlightened society than the notion of guilt. Guilt is a horrid thing, both on the individual and collective level, for the cohesion of any nation. Indeed, it is arguably the most corrosive venom imaginable for the overall moral fabric, especially in the case of a modern, virtuous and faithful state like Libertyville@Esperantia, a society that was understandably proud of its unblemished heritage and which looked eagerly ahead to the many still unredeemed promises of the future.time. Alone the necessity to continuously and actively absolve a society and its members of unnecessary guilt in itself represented a huge and awful waste of moral and material resources that were better put to use elsewhere.

Of course, Libertyville@Esperantia was not a haven of saints, nor was it ever truly advertised to be such. Quite to the contrary, it is an entirely thinkable proposition that–on a small scale, for example–a transgression or two may occasionally have to be overlooked as it became bleached and weathered through perspective and with the passage of time. It is also possible that even in the most righteous societies a diminutive sin or two may now and then be consciously papered over in the wider interest of some larger universal good cause, banished to some internal realm where any failings it may manifest remain hidden away from potentially agonizing or embarrassing public scrutiny. But by its very nature, guilt can never dissipate completely without leaving at least a few scratches or scars, some of which may be outright hideous and others which are perhaps slightly more subtle. Even the very worst conscience will eventually stop screaming to announce its presence, but true guilt will never, ever cease its persistently disquieting whispering. Just as the monotonous constant slow dripping of water is said to hollow the proverbial stone, the acid of silent incrimination patiently erodes the soul and moral fabric in the same insidious manner.

Day in and day out.

Drop by drop.

Hidden guilt is treacherous, a facet of human nature at its worst and often as inconspicuous and equally dangerous as the sinister dark shadows that lurk furtively on the bloated and hardening liver of a blissfully ignorant drunk.

Criminals are of course guilty by definition, their maliciousness and failures having been laid bare and ultimately documented for all to see by a court of law. Were it not so, then they would not be convicted criminals.

Thieves and liars, for example, are then burdened by the immense gravity of their failings and the moral debt which they have incurred toward a society that worked hard and ceaselessly to provide for them.

But this was certainly not the case for those members of that same society seeking nothing more than to protect themselves from evil or wrong-doing through the administration of a punishment judged wholly appropriate and proportionate to the magnitude of the crime committed. Punishment was an accepted fact of life. In fact, in this day and age, it would be utterly unjust to confront a society at every turn and bend with debates of conscience, questioning the uniform application of punishment for behavior deemed criminal by a wide and solidly accepted social consensus.

This was a drawback of even the most liberal societies. An immense amount of effort and resources could be squandered in endless agonizing deliberation over which punishment was fitting for which offense. In societies less advanced that that of Libertyville@Esperantia, it was not unusual for appeals to perpetuate themselves. So while the vast majority of enlightened democracies trusted markets to find the points of equilibrium for just about everything, in many of these same states, the administration of justice anachronistically continued to be a matter of top-down regulation.

Thus, an essentially simple situation presented itself: Libertyville@Esperantia was a society which, since the days of its founding, was deeply and deliberately rooted in worthy moral principles which its citizens were determined to uphold in the sometimes stern face of myriad adversity. With a wide consensus in place on this issue, it was accepted that criminals by definition had proven themselves guilty of forms of behavior far and beyond the boundaries of collectively accepted norms of the society in which they lived.

It goes nearly without saying, then, that the only truly logical method for a society to protect itself was to consistently and clearly reinforce the lesson that the reigning public consensus deemed criminal behavior was inexcusable, absolutely and completely unacceptable. Punishment was to be exercised by democratic consensus, not simply by regulation.

Zero tolerance was one of the buzzwords.

The valid and reigning conclusion, then, was that criminal behavior, irrespective of the magnitude of the actual offense, was therefore something that could never be ignored. Indeed, it was the God-given right–even more, it was the duty–of every concerned citizen of Libertyville@Esperantia to protect themselves and, by extension, the entire collective body of its law-abiding co-citizens from the many various perils that constituted a real and enduring threat to the integrity of its moral fabric. The state’s robust constitution, often referred to in day-to-day affairs as da.Lawz, and the subordinate Uniform Code of Selectively Applied Justice were the judicial tools with which an orderly and equitable co-existence were assured and in which devious or dubious behavior, as well as the appropriate sanctions applicable hereto, were clearly elucidated.

Violent crimes, including those of passion, could easily be cited as examples.

Treason and drug offences.

Vandalism, malicious non-achievement − also known in vernacular as first-degree leeching–and a variety of property crimes.

In dealing with such serious offenses, the state, by virtue of the moral authority invested in it by its concerned citizenry, claimed through its mature and democratically legitimized institutional structure the inalienable right to deal with perpetrators in the most vigorous manner conceivable. This was one of the most effective means available to the system to assert its natural claim to legitimacy and thereby serve the interests of its constituents.

And there was no question that dealing in a vigorous manner might naturally include the administration of capital.comtainment where this was considered appropriate and necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the state’s vast body of loyal citizens.

Those victimized by crime.

In other words, the innocent citizenry.

More specifically, those innocent victims who had with the passage of time proven themselves willing to abide by the rules and thereby actively or passively enabled the legal system to attain the high level of development it had by now achieved.

What, then, so the argument at its inception, was more fitting than an enlightened society exercising its right to education, entertainment and participation in the democratic process while simultaneously serving justice on those found to be guilty of serious crimes?

There were really no serious grounds for misgivings which might give real cause for objection.

After all, capital.comtainment was indisputably effective.

It freed increasingly scarce public resources by keeping the costs of an otherwise potentially unwieldy penal establishment down to a minimum: hardcore offenders were efficiently and permanently removed from the system, resulting in impressive fiscal savings for society. Lower costs were widely recognized to be an important first step toward leaner government, an objective almost unanimously applauded in modern civilized societies.

Capital.comtainment also reduced the already heavy burden on the judiciary system by handling otherwise unnecessarily lengthy appeals promptly and swiftly. Extensive public participation ensured that justice was applied evenly and without a barrage of exhaustive and expensive procedural delays. A kind of expanded jury, ruling nationwide from the comfort of its own sofa or kitchenette, was made neatly and instantaneously accessible through capital.comtainment.

Finally, capital.comtainment served the purpose of soothing the collective conscience by ensuring that no one person could or should ultimately be held responsible in the event that the ultimate penalty should become unavoidable for an intransigent or unrepentant offender.

Or in the unfortunate event, however unlikely this possibility might actually be, that some form of unfortunate oversight or judicial error made itself apparent afterwards.

Libertyville@Esperantia’s dread.commachine was the entertaining and educational equivalent of a blank cartridge in one of the many guns in the hands of an enlightened society’s firing squad.

It was a truly revolutionary idea whose time had finally come. The long-hedged dream of no-fault justice was finally being born into reality.

And the telly.tube ratings had been phenomenal ever since.