Human Rights & Advocacy
The central pathology of human nature is the tendency to attempt to control other human beings. It is this absolute greed for power which may turn out to be the fatal bug in our human program.-- HSH Shadow Dragu-Mihai
HSH Shadow Dragu-Mihai is a proponent of individual human rights, and an opponent of state power in any form which attempts to assert superiority over human beings. He contends that political power and 'rights' emanate naturally and properly from the individual. The idea that any state entity may 'recognize' or 'grant' a human right to a human being is absurd - it is the creation, and a poor creation at that, asserting it is sovereign over its creator. Prince Shadow's philosophy might loosely be similar to that of Dorothy Day and other philosophers who assert an ideology of "personalism" and require that one live life intentionally, always recognizing and responsible for the effects of one's actions.
This philosophy has led Prince Shadow to work on a number of issues. The tools of personal privacy and security, the development of 'liquid democracy' and the advent of cryptocurrencies are of vital interest to him, because of their world-wide potential for individual empowerment and truly progressive and positive change.
Prince Shadow has taken leadership roles in the creation of the United Democratic Commonwealth, a delegative democracy being designed as a global trans-national polity (a 'distributed polity'). This effort seeks to end violence and empower people and individuals across the world, and ultimately make the negative effects of state and corporate structures irrelevent. Part of this effort is the Global Citizenship Project currently being developed through the UDC.
Prince Shadow undertakes other and various advocacy activities as he finds must be done,and time permits.
After World War Two, revelations of the Jewish genocide at the hands of Nazis, along with the recognition of other war crimes associated with the fascist regimes and at least a partially politically motivated (and racist in itself) wish to be able to define a pathology among the German and Japanese peoples, prompted academic research into the question of what causes normal, otherwise reasonable and responsible people (in other words, 'otherwise good people') to do such terrible things to others. One result, which has become one of the most influential works in social sciences, is The Authoritarian Personality, (Adorno, et al. 1950). I submit that the laboratory research is in fact superfluous. To find out why good people do unspeakable things to others, even against their own communities and ultimately against their own families, one need look no further than the corporate and bureaucratic structures we as human beings have allowed to develop. The phenomenon is easily created through the use of what we lawyers call the 'legal fiction' of a corporation or state bureaucracy (which are fictional because they do not in fact exist other than by the agreement of people acting 'within' them and 'with their authority').
Corporations and bureaucracies are 'legally' and structurally designed on the one hand, to remove personal responsibility from a human actor for his or her acts which are deemed to be acts of the corporate entity, and on the other hand to appropriate the credit for innovation or acts of value from the individual to the legal fiction. Thus, in bureaucracies and corporations we have always seen - and today more than ever - things done which are clearly detrimental to real people, and which those human beings doing them would never do if they felt any personal responsibility. For examples, one need only look to intentionally faulty studies and other immoral methods used by the pharmaceutical industry to create and sell drugs which the people in that industry know are not only ineffective but actually harmful; or to the tobacco industry which intentionally spiked its product with addictive poisons and targeted children as users; or to the food industry which seeks through the use of 'intellectual property' maneuvers to gain world-wide legal ownership over entire natural food products such as broccoli; or to Monsanto's efforts to replace viable and useful crops - sometimes by the attempted decimation of entire genomes - with their own proprietary but questionable and untestable gmo vectors (which, having turned out unviable, have destroyed entire industries and economies world wide); or the NSA, GCHQ and other 'state security' agencies which use 'anti-terrorism' and other inflammatory phrases as justifications to circumvent legal and constitutional protections so that they can gather all your personal information and keep it for a future time when those in power might want to construct a case against you, under laws which are not even imagined yet.
Think for just a few minutes. You will come up with many more examples. It is too easy.
In the corporate context, these acts are done typically in the name of profit; in the state bureaucracy context, in the name of 'state security' or 'national interest' or 'budget'. In all cases, the individuals responsible for the act know or should know the detrimental effects they have or in the futrue will have on real people. They would probably never do such acts if they felt personally responsible. The organizational structure itself allows them to shift the sense of personal responsibility for personal decisions.
This seems an obvious, in fact fundamental point of blatant common sense, but one which in western culture at least we categorically ignore. Philosophers, politicians and social scientists alike claim to be perplexed by the problem, if they deign to notice it at all. Most of them are not able or are unwilling to confront the simple truth; to do so would compel them to the inescapable conclusion that they themselves are part of the problem and therefore they themselves are responsible and they themselves must do something to change things. Unfortunately, the answer to this problem requires a complete replacement of our structure of government and organization (though not of the ideals of democracy). It does not take the political equivalent of Einstein to realize that is a dangerous view to hold, even in states where the ideals of 'free speech' and 'democracy' are thought to be valued.
Now I have said it, you have read it and it makes sense, right? Now you know it, and you have to deal with the fact that if you do nothing, you are part of the problem, but if you do something, it may be uncomfortable. What are you going to do?-- HSH Shadow Dragu-Mihai