CONSTITUTION OF MENTALLY SANE SOCIETY Today, our friend Jean-Francois attempted to draft a constitution for a mentally sane society. By jumping straight to the structure of a parliament... Which is (if you think carefully) a tertiary problem if not lower. Let us dig deeper, as we usually do with me, several levels more fundamental... Article 0 One's mental state can not affect one's legal status including his rights and responsibilities. No argument of a mental state can enter a courtroom. No one can be exonerated on the basis of mental disability. No one can be deprived of any rights on the basis on mental disability. No "expert" opinion can make a man legally disabled. This article certainly angered you. Because for a normie brain it sounds "we should punish mentally ill" -- but it does not say a word about punishment! Read it again. It says we must TRY mentally ill as if they are healthy. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT YET?!?!?!?!? Or living in the modern insane society has already erased this distinction from you brain? Still this article sounds as if aimed "against" the privilege of the mentally ill, and you can not argue this privilege isn't real, especially when such a person commits a crime against you and walks free afterwards as they REGULARLY DO -- there is a solid strategy among petty criminals to claim mental disability if things aren't looking good for them, and there is an entire caste of petty criminals with the official permanent mental disability papers, moreover, even the mid to high status crime lords sometimes possess those "mental disability" papers, just in case. This article indeed closes this loophole, but it is a pleasant bonus, not the real intent of the article. The intent of this article is to protect THE INNOCENT people from being declared mentally ill. Mental disability is a double edge sword, not only it allows a guilty party to bypass the due process, but also it allows false accusers to bypass the due process. If a process does not look winnable for the prosecutor, he has an option to send you to a mental institution where your destiny depends completely on "experts" and is completely independent from the court. By being sent to a mental institution to "evaluate" your mental state, you are removed from the civil framework -- no human rights apply to you when you are in the custody of "medical professionals". And it is only on paper "evaluation" of your mental state, in reality you are a "patient" and the "medical professionals" have a carte blanche to "cure" you. And you know they have enough chemicals to destroy your mental health, so that after this "evaluation" you will be legitimately mentally disabled. And they have ZERO RESPONSIBILITY, because they only applied legitimate drugs prescribed by a "protocol". Thus the prosecutor has an option to annihilate your legal representation in the court -- puff! -- your voice has no meaning anymore, YOU ARE NOT EVEN PRESENT anymore, and your presence IS NO LONGER REQUIRED. Such a trial would be considered "just" by the normies without listening to your version of the story, and all it takes is some EXTRAJUDICIAL "expert" opinion! THE ONLY way to protect YOU from being declared mentally ill, is to ban this declaration UNCONDITIONALLY for everyone. There is no way a declaration of mental illness can be legitimate because it is fundamentally UNVERIFIABLE. No physical evidence of anyone's mental state exists in this world. No, it does not matter how often the prosecutors use the "mental illness" trump-card -- the frequency argument is inherently irrelevant -- trump cards are not supposed to be used every day (although in the inheritance cases it happens visibly often, you don't know about it because victims are usually elderly people who are supposed to be demented anyway, right?) Your human rights should be formulated and recognized REGARDLESS of any attempts to violate them. I think we write laws in order to know what to do with future crimes, not the past crimes, am I right? Article 1 Responsibility can not be divorced from authority. An actor owns his actions. Nobody owns actions of another actor. Responsibility for any actions of any actor, including non-legal actors (animals, machines, children, women, organizations) can not disappear. For each misdeed some people personally have to answer legally, unless the damage is provably attributed to geophysical or cosmic phenomena. A legal owner of a non-legal actor by-default bears responsibility for all actions of his property as if HE HIMSELF acted. A member of an organization takes the full responsibility upon himself while acting on behalf of an organization, in addition the same full responsibility falls upon the one giving the order. The only bearer of responsibility is a man. So called "legal-entities" are forbidden. This article is as clear as day, I don't think it requires commentary, unless you explicitly ask. Note how well it works with the Article 0: if you still insist that some man is "not responsible" for his actions, then YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS! Because a "mentally ill" requires a legal guardian -- if he is not responsible, he is not capable of making decisions, because responsibility can not be divorced from authority. With these mere two articles we defined something that ALL human constitutions always miss... a foundation of some sort, upon which the idea of responsibility becomes legal. Without these two articles you can write any constitution and it won't work as you intended, because it will leave a gate open to BYPASS IT ALTOGETHER. What's the point of having a justice system if you can create a purely abstract "legal entity" and shift all your sins onto this scapegoat, or declare someone "mentally ill" and destroy him without a single objection from the public. And with these two in place we can proceed to improving and strenghtening of The Bill Of Rights, which will be the topic of the next article should I survive until then. P.S. If you still believe in benevolent psychiatrists, look no further than the Daniel Haltzclaw case. The case of a man whom you can not deem "mentally ill" -- it is important so you can not switch on your lazy mental defence. The man was sent to jail forever on a single "expert" opinion, I quote: "He was nervous during the interrogation, he must be lying". It sounds like a joke, but it is real -- this was officially considered "evidence" by the court! Even IF there were other evidence (which were absent) you can not take seriously a court that listens to such "experts". This is how the acceptance of a mental state claim in a court kills falsely accused people even without the invocation of so called "mental disabilities". A mental state claim is fundamentally UNVERIFIABLE! Think about it, if you hasn't yet. It is in essence indistinguishable from spectral evidence. But the spectral evidence was banned in effing 13th century!!! That's how retarded is our present "justice" system. And you can not overcome this retardation without the articles presented above. P.S. Also note how neatly we dispelled feminism: "An actor owns his actions. Nobody owns actions of another actor." -- here the equity divorce goes to trash. I leave for you homework to connect these dots.