Where Did They Get the Authority to Decide Who Lives and Dies?
#FreedomShorts: "The Teleios Act"
With a potential stint of jury duty looming (itself a subject worthy of future discussion), I must get ahead on some more Christmas prep. Thus, we will just do a quick #FreedomShorts post today.
That said, the 12-minute film “The Teleios Act” is a worthy choice. Here is the logline:
In the not-so-distant future, the Teleios Act dictates whether a baby is “perfect” enough to be born into a perfect society, but when the beloved spokesmodel conceives after a decade of infertility, a clerical mix-up threatens their lives.
I don’t think that logline really does it justice. It is moving, has a bit of action, and raises a variety of important questions…
Why should any government have the authority to decide who lives and dies (outside of exigent circumstances in which an innocent person’s life is threatened). None of the rest of us have that authority—so where did government get it?
How on Earth is “making the perfect society” or “reducing strain on public services” justification for murder? Yet you know this argument will be made, just as it was made during American progressives’ sickening infatuation with eugenics.
The problem should be obvious to most people, but it won’t be.
The problem lies in having an entity with the power to decide, and centrally control through violence, what “society should be.”
The problem lies with public funding (through forced redistribution) of public services, which then creates the excuse to do things like exactly this. Just like the sickos in Canada are doing.
The film raises other questions too, about certain kinds of babies. But I don’t want to give anything away.
For some reason, playback seems to be disabled, so just click here or on the link in the video box.
I have to run now, but I look forward, as always, to your thoughts.
The UK has just passed euthanasia laws too, we are being ruled by the global elites.
Remember, "Jury Nullification" is a lawful, sometimes necessary finding.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/criminal-defense/jury-nullification/
Our legal system really doesn't want us to know about Jury Nullification. It will and has arrested citizens simply for trying to inform the public about it:
https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/its-perfectly-constitutional-talk-about-jury-nullification
https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/colorado-supreme-court-jury-tampering-ruling/73-5e6ad145-4c86-4265-8433-d4f3712cbc81
Please accept the jury summons. No matter how inconvenient. Being as stealthy as you can, without tipping your hand about your predisposition towards cases, impartiality, knowledge of the law that gets you disqualified. Unless it's verifiable you're a blank, impressionable slate. For freedom. And the health and safety of society.
While jury nullification is primarily intended to overrule unjust laws it is also useful to overrule unjust application of just laws. I.e. arbitrary, capricious and whimsical prosecutions. Those opposed to informing jurors about their right to nullify prosecutions often claim that it's a threat to the rule of law, the judicial system itself, produces distrust of the system. Those arguments ignore the culpability of those controlling the judicial system producing distrust. THEY break the trust with citizens with arbitrary, capricious and whimsical prosecutions. I.e. tyrannical prosecutions. Where Lady Liberty's blindfold has fallen off and who you are, your politics and values matters more than the crime you've been charged with.
Tyranny breeds distrust of the judicial system, not information about the remedy to tyranny, Jury Nullification. And the rank hypocrisy of those who argue against Jury Nullification because it allows a handful of people to determine which laws are just, which prosecutions are just or not is noxious and odious. Those who argue against Jury Nullification are typically the same ones who argue FOR the ability of prosecutors and judges to charge and determine guilt based on "prosecutorial discretion" and equity concerns. They are allowed to use their discretion, based on their values, but jurors and citizens are not? Tyrants arguing the merits of their tyranny while prohibiting any challenges to their tyranny.
That said, odds are the case won't be about anything these principles I'm sharing will apply to. But they might! Be that guy who protects freedom if the case is. Whether or not the defendant is guilty under positive law, would natural law find the defendant guilty? That should be the only question.