THE GREAT SWINDLE

CONTENTS

• The Lawyer
  • Lawyer as Shaman?
  • Dispute Resolution
    • The Adversary System
    • Other Systems
      • Inquisitorial System
      • 'Local Elder' System
      • 'No-Fault' Concept
    • Insurance Companies
  • The Judicial System
  • The Federal Judiciary
• The Politician
  • The Great American Experiment
  • Recent Elections & The Swindle
  • 1994 - Tom Foley
  • 2000 - McCain & Nader
  • A 'Godly' Nation
• The Big-Businessman
  • Corporations
  • The Stock Market
• Conclusion

The final three institutions in which the 'Sting' of the Great Swindle has embedded itself are the institutions of government, law, and business.

Actually, the three have become so intertwined with one another that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw any clear distinctions between them.

But, for purposes of penetrating the workings of the Great Swindle, it isn't necessary to clearly distinguish between them. It is enough to simply note that they are  so intertwined, and then to take each one separately.

And, the best way to do that is to first look at the role which most clearly and pervasively crosses over into all three of them.

THE LAWYER

As with the healing arts, and for the same reasons, and in the same way, the profession of law is a monopoly.

One cannot be a lawyer unless one belongs to a Bar Association as set up and regulated by government. And, in creating and regulating these associations, including regulations as to the educational and other qualifications for membership, government pretty much looks to the lawyers themselves to tell it what to do.

Indeed, the lawyers make up a large complement of the politicians who are  the institution of government in the first place.

The Lawyer has several of the same qualities which set the Shaman apart as a unique role within the Institutional 'Sting' of the Swindle.

In addition to the critical factor of his monopoly, he also, at least in his role as judge, wears distinctive clothing in the judicial robe (and in British courts, the lawyers wear them as well, and also wigs); he uses a language that is often all but unintelligible to the average layman; and, he exacts a high price in Money/Power/Status for his services.

Yet, despite all these similarities, there is one crucial difference which totally separates the Shaman, and his cousins the Experts, from the Lawyer, as roles in the Swindle.

The status of the Shaman and the Expert depend upon the existence of either natural or supernatural phenomena, over which they claim a monopoly of the ability to manipulate for the benefit of their clients, and, their clients BELIEVE in the existence of both the phenomena, and the ability to manipulate them.

With the Lawyer, while the client may believe in the lawyer's ability to manipulate the legal system to his benefit, very few people actually BELIEVE that the legal system itself, and all of its complexities, is any type of 'natural' phenomenon at all.

Indeed, most people are well aware that a large part of the reason the system is so complex as to require lawyers to figure it out, is that the lawyers, themselves, make it that way.

If lawyers are a necessity, it is because they have made themselves a necessity and not because some mystery of 'nature' has created need for their expertise. (Indeed, most people would prefer to get rid of the lawyers if they could just figure out how to do it.)

Since the Lawyer is  lacking any general BELIEF as to his ability to influence any natural or supernatural force, what does  sustain his role as not only a player in the 'Sting' of the Swindle, but as a major  player in it?

Why does  he still exist, at least to the pervasive extent that he does, and wielding the amount of power that he does?

Let's take a closer look.

First off, we must clearly recognize that most of what lawyers and trial courts do is resolve disputes between people, and most of those disputes are over - what else? - money.

It is true that lawyers and courts occasionally perform a more uplifting service by way of vindicating justice (whatever that is - at least sometimes) and resolving disputes involving more fundamental issues than money.

But, the vast bulk of what they do is nothing more than referee who gets money from whom, and how much.

Does it really require expensive lawyers and courts to do that  ?

Not really.

So, why do we do it this way?

Well, a major part of the answer to this question lies in the answer to an even more basic question.

Why do we get into such a vast amount of disagreement over money in the first place?

If there weren't so many clients suing one another over money, there wouldn't be nearly as many lawyers as there are today. There wouldn't be enough business to sustain all of them.

But, since the Grand Distractor of Money/Power/Status is so pervasive as to create this amount of business, can we really blame the lawyers for being caught up in it too, and, like the rest of us, trying to get every buck he can get?

And, since our focus is on money, rather than on amicably and fairly settling our disputes, why not have a system that maximizes the complexity of contention and nastiness rather than one which maximizes the simplicity of fairness and compassion?

A fundamental mainstay of the lawyer's role as a player in the Institutional 'Sting' of the Swindle, is the adversary system.

This system originated during the middle ages in England, and is prevalent in those countries and states whose legal systems are derived from that ancient legal tradition.

It is based upon the ancient BELIEF that the "truth" can best be found in a dispute by turning it over to God. Trials were by combat, and the assumption was that the victor had justice on his side, or God wouldn't have let him win.

That is  the basis of the adversary system.

Only, today, rather than have knights engage in actual physical combat to see who wins, we have lawyers who engage in intellectual combat, and may the 'best' man win.

The lawyers insist that having both sides 'slug it out' is still the best way to arrive at "truth" and, therefore, justice.

But, the lawyers have reasons other than TRUTH and justice motivating their adoration of the adversary system.

First, it just happens to be the system they are trained, and therefore expert, in, and they wouldn't be so expert in some other system.

And, being a combative rather than a more conciliatory system, it generates much more work for lawyers to do and, thus, get paid for.

There are other systems.

And, in cultures with those other systems, the lawyers aren't nearly as pervasive as they are in our society.

In most of Western Europe, the inquisitorial system is followed, which considerably tones down the combative aspects we are so used to.

In rural areas of Mexico, a 'local elder' system is followed, where a mutually respected and trusted layman is selected to mediate and resolve disputes.

There are even experiments with such local and informal dispute resolution in our own country; and they are successful (at least to the extent the lawyers will allow them to succeed unmolested).

The idea of 'no-fault' has been tried in various fields of law such as divorce, workers compensation and automobile accidents.

By removing the concept of 'fault' from the law, a major battle field in which the lawyers can contend with one another is closed for the season.

It is based upon the recognition that many of the unhappy and unfortunate occurrences in life are not necessarily any particular person's 'fault', and to spend massive amounts of resources in trying to allocate such 'fault' is senseless.

Instead, the focus, at least in theory, is upon trying to make everyone involved as 'whole' as possible, in as fair and just a manner as possible, without wasting time in each person having to lay the 'blame' on the other.

It is a good concept. At least in theory.

And in the field of divorce law, it has, indeed, had some good effects by removing a basis for needless animosity between the divorcing couple. Although there are still 'heated' divorces, there are now many more which are far more amicable than they would have been had it still been necessary for one party to establish 'fault' in the other.

But in the areas of workers compensation and auto accident law, the results have been less satisfactory, and even bizarre.

This is due primarily to two reasons.

Firstly, the concept of 'no-fault' is a non-adversary approach trying to operate in what is still, at base, an adversary system.

It is like putting a concert violinist in the middle of a heavy metal rock concert and wondering why he doesn't come out sounding very good.

An adversary system simply isn't the best of settings for a non-adversary approach to be as fully effective as it could otherwise be.

But another reason has its roots in a more fundamental aspect of the Great Swindle itself.

The areas of workers compensation and automobile accidents are now tied in very tightly with insurance companies, which are now very much a Big-Business. And, the Big-Businessman, as we shall discuss later in this section, is yet another player in the 'Sting' of the Swindle.

The basic idea underlying insurance is a 'no-fault' concept itself.

The idea is simply to 'spread the risk' of the various calamities and misfortunes of life among a large group of people, so that they all help one another when misfortune strikes, and no one is totally devastated when it does.

It's a beautiful idea.

But, now, it has become a Big-Business.

And as such, the insurance companies are often more concerned about 'bottom line' profits than they are about the equitable 'spreading of the risks' which is their original reason for even existing in the first place.

When the emphasis is on profit, rather than fairness, and it all has to function in a legal system that is an adversary system, that the results are often bizarre, even grotesque, is not surprising.

The judicial system is the core of the institution around which the lawyers operate, and, again by law, is made up almost exclusively of lawyers.

It's role is that of the mediator in the adversary system, and its function is to oversee that system and, hopefully, make it work. As such, its basic concern, at least in theory, is what we all would like for the whole legal system to be about - justice and fairness.

Of course, as we all know, far too often justice and fairness are not what the legal system, nor the judicial system, actually produce.

Such results are due to three general (Swindlous?) reasons.

First, when one is directly involved in a suit, one usually sees his side as being the 'just' one. And, if he loses, he can't see the 'justice' in it.

Second, although the judicial system is a separate and mediating branch of the adversary system, it is still a part of that system. And, as we have discussed, the very basis of the adversary system in terms of producing justice is antiquated and focused on winning rather than justice.

Finally, judges, while usually lawyers, are also politicians as well. The judicial system is a branch of not only the institution of law, but also the institution of government.

As such, judges are either politically appointed or elected. A judge, by definition, is a Politician.

We shall get to this aspect in a moment.

The judicial system at the federal level in the United States is unique in that its members are appointed for life, and cannot be removed from office except by the same process of impeachment it takes to remove a President.

And this very factor provides an instructive insight into the overall operation of the Institutional 'Sting' of the Great Swindle, and how it could be stopped.

Members of the federal judiciary start out as lawyers and politicians. They must be lawyers to qualify for appointment, and they are politically appointed by the President.

Yet, upon entry into the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, they become effectively insulated from the direct effects of the thought forces and financial pressures of the institutions which spawned them.

As a result of this insulation, sometimes, although not always, depending upon the individuals, they are able to see the operation and effects of the Great Swindle in society more clearly, and thereby rise above the effects of the Swindle in their own thinking.

Although not consistently, the Supreme Court has recently been an ameliorating influence on the effects of the Great Swindle simply from its members having been placed in a position where they are removed from its direct effects upon their own modes of thought.

(Truly, God bless America and its Constitution, and because  of its Constitution).

THE POLITICIAN

The institution of government is, by its nature, a political institution. Therefore, those involved in it are, by definition, Politicians.

That most politicians are also lawyers, is instructive, but not inevitable. There are reasons for this.

And, that the integrity and ethical level of the Politician, like that of the Lawyer, is generally perceived to be somewhere around that of a used car salesman, or worse, is also instructive but not inevitable.

And it isn't simply a matter of too many 'dishonest' lawyers causing government to become equally 'dishonest'.

In FACT, the very same forces that cause the Lawyer to be the way he is are what cause the Politician to be so much the same.

Having already looked at the forces which shape the Lawyer, let's now take a look at how those forces act upon and mold the Politician.

So, what's wrong with the Politician?

Well, when boiled down to its essence, our basic complaint is that, while mouthing high ideals, he is totally caught up in the Money/Power/Status game, and, consequently, he is fundamentally 'dishonest'.

He says one thing while meaning another, he makes promises he doesn't keep, and he is forever involved in back room, behind the scenes 'deals' which serve his personal interest and the public be damned.

And, far too often, all of this is true.

The question is, why  is this so often true?

Is it because only 'crooks' get involved in politics in the first place? Is politics so 'grubby' that only a 'crook' would want to be associated with it at all?

Or, is it because when even an 'honest' man gets into politics, he discovers, to his disillusionment and dismay, that in order to stay in, or even get in, so as to be able to do the 'honest' things he wants to do, he, too, winds up having to resort to 'crooked' tactics?

Actually, both of these are true.

So what does that mean?

Politics, and its primary institution of Government, as an institution , is 'dishonest'.

Why is this the case?

Because we, as a society, have exactly the type of politicians we deserve. We, not only deserve them as they are, we create  them in that mold.

In an elective democracy, as we pretty much have in the United States, the government is, indeed, 'of and by the people'.

And, if that government turns out not  to be for  the people, the people have no one to blame but themselves.

When the founding fathers first propounded The Constitution of The United States, they knew full well that they were engaging in a never before tried experiment in human government.

In some significant ways that experiment has turned out quite well.

In some equally significant ways, that experiment has so far turned out very sour.

In this discussion we are dealing with one of those remaining significantly sour aspects of that experiment.

And the real question is, where have we gone wrong in this historic and momentous experiment so as to be plagued by these unhappy aspects of it, and how can we correct for it?

The answer to this question lies within the Great Swindle.

The cause of everything that has so far gone wrong with the Great American Experiment can be directly traced to the Americans, themselves, being caught up in the fallacious modes of thinking presented in this writing as the Grand Distractors.

We could correct for that - if we were to so CHOOSE.

We already possess the basic framework for as good a form of government as the human mind is likely to devise.

But that form of government, as good as it is, is still only one of the several basic institutions of our culture.

And, as with the other institutions, it cannot truly fulfill its highest purposes so long as the Great Swindle permeates the underlying culture, of which it is but a part.

In the 1994 non-presidential Congressional election, the Republican Party engineered a 'sweep' in which it wrested the long standing control of both houses of Congress from the Democrats by winning a majority of seats in both. The Republicans accomplished this by capitalizing on the wide spread and deeply felt disenchantment of the electorate with the 'business as usual' Swindle of government as it had so persistently been, and offering an alternative which, if not anti-Swindlous or even non-Swindlous, would be perhaps somewhat less Swindlous (or at least shift the chairs around a little as to 'winners' and 'losers' in the game of the Politician's share of the Swindle).

The defeat of Congressman Tom Foley of the State of Washington was a noteworthy example of the possibility for reversing the Swindle at the level of the Institutional 'Sting'. Mr. Foley was Speaker of The House of Representatives, a postition of great Power/Status, and had already demonstrated to the voters in his congressional district his ability to 'bring home the bacon' for their direct and unique benefit in terms of federal programs. Indeed, he based his re-election campaign solely on the Swindlous benefits he could provide his constituents as a result of his postition. And he lost. The voters in his district were able to step outside and above their own short-sightedly "self"ish interests, and see and act upon their own broad-sighted SELFness, and thereby rejected the blatantly Swindlous CHOICE he had offered them.

In the 2000 U.S. Presidential election there were two noteworthy candidates whose campaigns were, at least from outward appearances, significantly non-Swindlous (even anti-Swindle) in their tone - John McCain and Ralph Nader.

Although neither came even close to being elected (such is the tenacity of the entrenched Swindle in the total population), they each attracted a significant number of adherents, as relatively paltry as that number may have been.

What each of these aspects of the 1994 and 2000 elections reveal with respect to the Great Swindle is twofold:

Firstly, they demonstrate the REALITY of the existence of significant numbers of individuals (however relatively small those numbers may be) who are already capable of attaining substantially non-Swindlous BELIEFS, and acting upon them within the institutional context in which they exist.

Secondly, they equally demonstrate the futility of trying to reverse the effects of the Great Swindle by simply addressing it at one of the levels of those effects (the Politician's share of the Swindle), rather than at the root cause of those effects - the Great Swindle itself (as we have already pointed out and as is more fully discussed in Political Reform? and The Institutional 'Sting'.)

With respect to correcting for that underlying Swindle which has caused the American experiment to so far produce results which are less than its highest ideals, it is necessary to look once again at the institution in which the Swindle first took form - that of the Shaman.

Because, many of the Shamans are still doing it to us, and with respect to the institution of government.

Our founding fathers, in the Constitution and otherwise, established a 'Godly'  nation, not  necessarily a Christian  one.

While many of them were Christians, not all of them were. Several of the most prominent founders were Masons and Deists. They all  believed in 'God', but not  necessarily the Christian  view of God. (The views of these prominent Masons and Deists were actually fully compatible with our broad definition of Esse rather than any more particularized Christian view).

The two primary foundational documents for the American experiment, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both refer to the general concept of 'God', but no particular  view of 'God'. Had it been otherwise, too many of the founders would not have agreed to that, and would not have signed or supported either.

The Declaration of Independence, at its beginning, makes reference to 'Laws of Nature', 'Nature's God', a 'Creator', and 'self-evident' 'Truths'. It says no more on the subject.

The Constitution makes no reference to 'God' and makes only one reference to 'religion' - and that is in the First Amendment for the specific purpose of prohibiting the government from in any way getting involved in 'religion'.

In making these limited references, and in the way in which they were made, the founders knew exactly what they were doing. They weren't being anti-God. They were being anti-Swindle .

They recognized that we can each see God differently, and yet all be correct in what we see.

They were assuring that every person was free to follow his own inner lights as to how he sees God, by assuring that no one person, or group of people, could use the coercive power of government to force their own particular view on everyone else.

There has been much dismay and upset in some quarters over relatively recent court decisions forbidding prayer and other religious exercises in public schools and other governmentally established and supported institutions.

The cry has been, 'How could the courts do this?'

The better question is, 'What took them so long to get around to doing it?'

The courts have not been forbidding a student from praying in school, as his own inner lights direct him to do so. Indeed, they have encouraged this.

What they have forbidden is the institution of government, of which public schools are a part, from requiring, regulating or encouraging any particular  form of religious exercise (which Christian  prayer and 'nativity' scenes at Christmas time are).

They have excluded particular  expressions of religion from government, so as to allow God , in the infinite fullness of that term, in .

This is precisely what the framers of the Constitution intended all along.

The fact that it didn't happen sooner is not an indication that our courts are becoming 'god-less'. It is an indication that the courts who came after the framers have finally gotten sufficiently past the Swindle of the more powerful Shamans to fulfill the intent of the Constitution.

Those who decry these court decisions are still very much caught up in the 'Sting' of the Shaman, and in the narrowness of vision of the 'I'm right and you're wrong' quality of the 'Us' vs.'Them' syndrome.

THE BIG-BUSINESSMAN

The final major player in the Institutional 'Sting' is the Big-Businessman.

We are speaking now of those business organizations (usually corporations, but not always) which have reached such a scale of operation that manipulation and monopolization appear equally, or more, financially appealing to them, than do the production of goods and provision of services which was the primary basis for their being in business in the first place.

This includes all of the major corporate conglomerates such as the major oil, energy, insurance and utility companies; and all other major 'diversified' corporations who spend as much, or more, time merging and buying, or forcing, one another out of business, as they do in actually producing anything of any worth, other than their own profit.

And it also includes any organization or 'whiz kid' individual whose primary business is market speculation, manipulation and monopolization.

The economic and even spiritual 'Sting' that these organizations, and the individuals who comprise them, represent, is quite apparent to any consumer who ends up paying the inflated prices that they engender. Nothing more we could say here would make this fact any more obvious than it already is.

As to what motivates the relatively few individuals who take this to the extremes that they do, it is (as with the Shaman, Expert, Lawyer and Politician) simply the Grand Distractors, especially that of Money/Power/Status, operating in extremes within them.

As to how we , as a society, not only allow but encourage them to do it, the answer is essentially the same.

By remaining caught up in these same Distractors ourselves, we help to maintain the cultural attitudes which reinforce these attitudes in those individuals. In a very real sense, many of us are playing the same 'game' they are. We're just not as good at it.

As to why  we would do this, it is simply that the Great Swindle has blinded us to the FACT that we are  doing it, and to the FACT that it need not be this way if we would but recognize what we are doing, and CHOOSE to change it within ourselves.

It truly is that basic. However, in order to assist us in such recognizing and CHOICE making, it might be helpful to clear away some of the Swindlous confusion surrounding two important aspects of Big-Business as it is currently structured.

CORPORATIONS

The almost deification of the corporation as being the primarily appropriate way of conducting business is now so deeply entrenched in our culture as to make it a candidate for listing as one of the Grand Distractors (and maybe it should be).

By this we do not mean the concept of the corporation itself, but its almost deification as a proper business structure, especially as it is structured and operates today.

The basic concept of the corporation itself, as with the basic concept of insurance, is a sound and beneficial one, and for substantially the same reasons.

Large numbers of individuals pooling their meager lumps of capital together into a large lump, so as to allow for substantial investment in the means for the economic benefit of all (which is the basic concept underlying corporations), is a truly grand and potentially hugely beneficial idea.

And if that were all there was to it with respect to corporations today, there would be no Swindle surrounding them and no problem.

However, when this concept becomes enmired in the Grand Distractors of Invincible Greed & Selfishness, Money/Power/Status, and Economic Competition, as they so clearly have today, the result is what we equally clearly now have.

There are such things as non-profit corporations today. And they can be quite effective in what they do. Why aren't they the prevalent model rather than the for-profit corporation? (And why are the justifications for the prevalence of the for-profit corporation inevitably based upon acceptance of the forementioned Grand Distractors as "fact"?).

THE STOCK MARKET

The Stock Market is simply an adjunct of the deification of the for-profit corporation.

Its whole reason for existing is to provide a mechanism (a market) for the buying and selling of shares in for-profit corporations. And its sole justification is the BELIEF that without such a mechanism, for-profit corporations could not flourish as well as they do with such a mechanism, and without maximally flourishing for-profit corporations we would all suffer as a result.

With respect to the Great Swindle, there are two difficulties with this mechanism, and the BELIEF which underlies it.

Firstly, is the underlying BELIEF TRUE?

Could non-profit corporations, whose shares are non-transferable (non-sellable) and thus require no market for their sale, not be just as, or even more, effective in achieving the benefits the basic concept of corporations holds for us all, than for-profit corporations are now?

We don't KNOW the answer to that question. Because we have never tried it.

And the reason we have never tried it is the entrenched BELIEF (not FACT but BELIEF) that the answer couldn't possibly be yes. (This despite the deeply Swindlous nature we all KNOW the for-profit corporation and its Stock Market have consistently continued to be).

Secondly, given the Swindlous milieu in which it was born and functions, the Stock Market can't be anything but Swindlous in its nature and operation. It has far less to do with bringing into existence new, economically beneficial corporations (and those it does help bring into existence are new born into the overall Swindle), and far more to do with simply speculating in and profiting from the buying and selling of shares in already existing corporations, which contributes nothing to the overall economic benefit of anyone other than the speculators and profiteers.

CONCLUSION

Before closing out this discussion, it is once again important to point out as clearly as we can, what we are not  saying, as well as what we are trying to say.

As with the Shaman and the Expert, the Lawyer, Politician and Big-Businessman cannot all be painted with a single brush of 'guilt', if, indeed, they can be so painted at all. As with all groupings of people, they run the spectrum from outright frauds to well intentioned philanthropists, and all shades of mixture in between.

The institutions of religion, healing, law, government and business are not evil in themselves. No member of any of them is evil simply because he is a member of it. This writing is not intended as an indictment of these institutions themselves, social institutions in general, or any particular individual or group of individuals within these institutions.

Rather, it is the whole point of this writing to indict the Great Swindle, itself, in all  of its manifestations, which must necessarily include its indictment in one of its major aspects, ie., its Institutional 'Sting'.

The institutions we have discussed here are neutral in their inherent character. They become either 'good' or 'bad', to whatever extent they do, as a direct result of what we, as a culture and society as a whole, cause them to be.

As a result of the Great Swindle, we have caused them to become the vehicles by which we so often Swindle ourselves. It is the purpose of this writing to point out the FACT of the infection of that Swindle, so that we can remove it and allow these institutions to work the tremendous amount of good that they can were it not for that infection.

And, with that, we shall now move on to the cure for that infection.