 |
(Illustrative Only) Wisdom-Strength for Collective Good
the explorer, the magician, the caregiver, the hero, etc.
We are strongest when we work together on our shared values and support those who understand their service to society.
The following are for philosophical consideration. Are they associated or separate?
Does earlier acceptance of wrongdoing indicate a pattern of thinking and a long-term consequences for society? How might metrics highlight patterns that manifest in other places? We are deep into philosophy now. The nation was built on a philosophical concept. |
As a society we must avoid any downward direction, that could under the wrong circumstances erode the foundations. It is not up to one generation to decide if democracy, freedom, liberty, and life has value. We have responsibilities beyond their self-interest, parties, and political ballyhoo as generations of divese people sacraficed to get us here. We then explore an allegory of value and institutional alignment.
In this thought experiment, we start with the social contract expressed in the Constitution’s Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity(future generations), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".
Notice that the Constitution does not single out the rich or the powerful, make distinctions based on race, require a particular religion, or demand loyalty to any political party. In many ways it is the opposite in that our only loyalty is to the principles of the nation and we can do that best by serving each other. Yet when people want something badly enough, they may try to place themselves above the guarantees of the Constitution and create unwritten rules that serve their own interests. Do not be so ignorant to think this is only a problem for other people or other nations.
Now imagine a philosophical learning scenario where a small group—driven by self-interest and bigotry—targets others to enrich themselves and impose their preferred social order. Their actions involve manipulation, repeated wrongdoing, and a pattern of victims chosen for harassment and violent threats. Many people were aware of what was happening—including a court and officials—yet the goal became to be as cruel, dishonest, and destructive as possible toward the victims, all while using taxpayer resources for self and ideological gain (Not representing the majority of good officials but the destructive power of extremism of the few who create narratives and violate rights openly.).
If corruption and partisan interests within the justice system quietly enable this behavior, isolated misconduct can grow into a coordinated form of domestic extremism—weaponizing institutions for retribution and undermining constitutional principles. Under certain lenses, this becomes something much more serious. Words that cannot be so easily thrown around as some have done for deflection and political purposes. It is our nation. No one is safe if there are not backstops in such a system: not intellectuals, not children, not sexual-assault victims, not the general public, not veterans, not officials, nor the public's resources. Anyone who disagrees eventually makes their way on a list.
What are some of the risks?
When checks and balances fail, the burden falls entirely on the victims but reverberates through society. A small group of corrupt actors, supported by like-minded allies in official roles, can spread hate narratives and violate rights with alarming speed. Even if most officials are honorable, it only takes a handful to push institutions off track. In this learning philosophic scenario, the system engaged in open, sanctioned hate. These type of courts dehumanized openly certain religions and races while rewarding the people who are closest in likeness to them. Years of known mistreatment and they fixed nothing in intentional rejection of American values. But that depends on who is doing what to whom. The word justice sounds like an abomination out of a corrupt judges mouth much like truth is out of a liar. So people learn that justice is not possible without reform and certain members of society are part of a second class system and will unlikely ever receive justice from broken souls (That doesn't not apply to those who uphold our Constitution and the will of the poeple. World Justice Project). Remember their values and how they can compromise on people's lives they can compromise with all of our lives. From the lowest to the highest court they have responsibilities to correct injustices. In peace one may encourage less partisanship and greater focus on their important roles and the needs of the people above the partisans and politicians. Another list....
Why isn’t it acceptable to misuse the justice system for self, party, or in-group gain?
Justice belongs to no political party, race, or religion. When hatred and ideological extremism take root—especially in the absence of strong safeguards—power is easily abused to serve insiders rather than the public. This is why wise leadership and renewed civic responsibility are essential. If those who do not have moral conscious work in important roles in which they are not qualified the entire structural glue begins to dissipate. Don't believe it? Stick around a few more years if things don't change. The hourglass is running low as the courts protect the wrong for those who are right and kiss the rings of power versus bend a humble knee to wash the feet of the "lowest' members of society. No one can have two masters.
Are there consequences if we fail to build safeguards and fail to correct wrongdoing?
Institutions are neutral; they reflect the integrity of those who run them. When misconduct goes unaddressed, trust erodes and democracy weakens. Harmful actors advance inch by inch, then faster, until core democratic pillars are placed at risk. The poor actors and shortsighted thinkers risk much for their my way or highway perspective. The opposite can also be true that thoughtful and moral actors can improve the systems performance.
How could they go so far?
They dehumanized their targets, fabricated stories, and spread them widely. Checks and balances did not function and they have shielded corruption for years thereby normalizing it. Courts incentivized the hate. Others who learned of the wrongdoing failed to correct it, compounding the harms to victims, creating new victims through retaliation, and showing little respect for the institution’s purpose or the concerns of the public. The system began operating for itself at the expense of everyone, including its own officials. But, a silver lining...
What might be a path forward?
Even in such a scenario, renewal is possible. Accountability, reflection, and recommitment to the oaths we swear can restore public trust. Patriotism should be earned through service, not used as a misused word to shield abuse. Vote for the best and brightest and not the most connected or those who are special interest vetted (whether foreign or domestic). Meaningful reform—guided by integrity—can move us toward a healthier system and a stronger democracy. Reward those who do well with increased support and continuance of positions. Our future is a choice and in this example without help from those who were entrusted to do the right thing that vote becomes increasingly more important. Vote your conscious and vote for the best people qualified to be in charge regardless of party. If you do not know who to vote in all the self selling puffery then vote independent so as to insert a new element. We the People are in Charge! At least in theory....
How is this a Learning Thought Experiment?
Everyone will learn and it will eventually be corrected. The victims will learn how to overcome hate and corruption and teach others, the perpetrators will learn why they shouldn't spread rumors and target people, the corrupted souls will learn there are consequences to misusing institutions for self gain, the extremists will learn they can't intimidate everyone with violence and underming of rights, officials will learn the importance of their oaths and complacent silence when they are undermined, the courts will learn they have responsibility to all members of society and not just the in-group, politicians will learn not to sell out their country for their parties ( or for the rich or foreign), and society will learn that diversity of life is an enhancement to our collective performance and The People have an active role in perserving our futures. Or maybe not? 🤷 What are your thoughts (That is the key point...your thoughts)?
*This is a philosophical, theoretical, hypothetical thought experiment on a justice default. Take with a grain of salt. Change around the elements and come to your own conclusion.
