I am not much into conspiracy theories, but I am a true believer in stupidity, the corruption of power, and the hubris of those who hold public—and even private—office. Titles tend to mess with one’s thinking, making one think the one with the title might be more than they are. Titles mess with the thinking of those with titles, and those who believe that titles automatically inculcate certain characteristics to the title holder. Those with titles tend to think they know better than those without titles, or that titles confer on them special privileges. Some with titles think that the title confers the right and power to initiate violence, or to delegate its initiation, against harmless people. Power damaged, it is called. It is a condition of the brain’s synaptic structure that automatically chooses force and duress, fraud and deceit, as the means to get one’s way. Titles do that to many people. Best to have no titles at all, and to function as just another human. That is what each person reading this is, actually: just another human.
Bullies and thugs are drawn to positions of power just as sadists are drawn to positions where they can inflict pain. But I repeat myself.
I don’t think it requires a conspiracy for things to go terribly, terribly wrong: I do think it requires the vigilance of honest people to protect and maintain their human rights and to keep things from going terribly, terribly wrong.
The word “Felon” no longer means a criminal, and has assumed an entirely different definition. I know a chap who is a felon in prison because he had more than legally allowed amounts of pain medication in his home to cope, from his wheelchair, with the excruciating levels of pain he suffered. He is now a convicted felon. Because he tried to ease his pain so that he could function as a husband and father. He has never hurt another human.
He is not a criminal, yet he is a felon. Many felons simply had a natural plant in their possession. They never hurt or threatened anyone, either. Some felons refused to turn over their earnings to kings or politicians. Should any of these people be denied the right to defend themselves and their families? What happens when the law changes, do they get their rights back? Prohibitions, and government’s assumed ownership of individuals’ bodies, are both flawed, as are all the laws derived from this assumption, including the right to the fruits of a worker’s labor.
I think the founders of this nation’s present government wanted to create a civilization based on individual human rights. SCOTUS has, in the past, upheld slavery, prohibition of alcohol, and a myriad of other stupid decisions–most if not all of those stupid decisions being against the intent of the founders of this nation’s government to create a civilization based on individual human rights. All those stupid SCOTUS decisions were against human rights, by any examination of the concept of human rights.
It is entertaining and instructive to read the papers of the founders, to determine the intent of their words. Even SCOTUS makes mistakes, as we all do, because they are just nine more humans, you know, even if they wear those academic robes. The robes don’t mean their brains are working any better than yours, actually. I think their brains are functioning at about a tenth of their potential, and are messed up with a lot of bad synaptic habits as well. That is pretty much the normal condition of the human brain. But, when an individual human finds that in a culture, the most effective means of obtaining what one wishes is to employ the initiation of force, then that individual human becomes power-addicted, and their synaptic routing in their brain becomes power-damaged.
Inferior laws repugnant to the superior law of the Constitution can be reasonably determined by any sane individual human: remember that law is not the province of the courts, but the codification of protection and advice of the people to protect individuals and a civilization of voluntary cooperation. Law is the codified written rules of social conduct in a civilization. We can no more rely on all the written superior or inferior laws as the final arbiters of our human behavior than we can rely on reading the entrails of chickens. There have been more unreasonable, silly laws passed by humans than good laws passed. And it is often impossible to abide by all the laws without violating conflicting laws. That is why you have a brain—so you can think about this stuff and figure it out for yourself.
That is why we humans have our own brains, so we can reason through concepts and derive those axiomatic concepts by which to guide our lives and actions. The Constitution is a good reference point, but if the Constitution is amended to make all red-haired people slaves, with appropriate statues to back that up, or was amended to lock up all Muslims, will you honor those laws? Would you honor a government law that suspended the right of habeus corpus and trial by jury, both individual human rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution of our nation? Hark back to the laws of Germany not that long ago: would you have followed those laws?
Nothing in any codified law relieves us, as thinking individuals, from forming our own code of ethics and behavior and acting with integrity, with honesty, with no initiation of violence, and with respect toward all other human life, insofar as to do so does not leave our own lives in danger, no matter what the law allows or does not allow, no matter what the law instructs or fails to instruct. No matter what oath we may take. And the oath does not mention anything about statutes (which are often in error and the result of over-reaching bureaucrats, anyway.) As a thinking individual, when one takes such an oath, one should have read the documents and know the meaning of those documents one is taking an oath to uphold. Else one should not take such an oath. Of course, some people take oaths very seriously, and thus do not take many.
So, in the final analysis, we cannot look back to our own founding documents as more than a beacon to help light the path of each individual life, and not as a map for the steps and direction of that life. We cannot, and should not, follow inferior laws which violate the contract, between this nation’s people and the government created by that contract, which we call the Constitution. Yet, I do not intend to obey any law which is repugnant to my own integrity and moral compass. I would not have turned Jews over to the Nazis. I will not snitch on any peaceful neighbor with an unlawful firearm. I will not cooperate to deprive any individual of their human rights.
The only conspiracy I enter into as an individual is my own, with me as the only conspirator, to honor human rights and refuse to initiate violence against anyone, anyone at all. If it means anything at all, civilization must mean that no one is allowed to initiate violence, or delegate its initiation, against any other person for any reason whatsoever.