Being Human
As with many of us, a lot has been going through my mind lately. Paramount among them is, will free speech disappear in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Murthy v Missouri? Are we on the verge of a dark age, or are we in fact on the verge of something like a new enlightenment based on honest money, honest medicine, rule of law instead of rule of men, and a realization that a large, controlling government is always there for the picking by those who wish to use that power and control to subjugate others? Thus the argument is for keeping government always subject to direct check by the people, who are sovereigns in their own persons.
The idea of subsidiarty is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (by way of Wikipedia) "the principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level." I think this idea will have to become more predominant. In practical terms this means, for example, that it really is “my body my choice,” and that any medical decisions that can be made by one’s own doctor are off-limits to control by higher authorities, such as the WHO. It means that the WHO has no business deciding anyone’s health.
A legal system of subsidiarity, too, would allow a thousand flowers to bloom as each local jurisdiction would have its own manner of dealing with its own affairs, with many disparate jurisdictions sharing similar well-worn protocols but with innovative protocols popping up here and there that would serve as models for others. A higher legal authority, then, would keep hands-off except to step in when violations of human rights, informed consent, free speech, etc., occurred. What a concept: that government might exist to ensure the freedom of those who sponsor the government!
The main theme of this short essay is the value and wonder of human being and human thought when it’s allowed free reign. This idea has to come out more and would be part of a logic for a new world— a logic of how to see humans, a narrative counter to the one presented by Yuval Harari, who states that we’re hackable animals and that the idea of free will is just one of many arbitrary narratives. If we want to move into the realm of metaphysics we might say that people are part of a world of things that grow, blossom, and die, what the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead called “actual occasions” as the fundamental experiental reality we encounter. Part of the character of these human actual occasions is the ability to think and reason.
Without further ado, here is a short clip of Richard Feynman explaining electromagnetism, and I’d like readers to notice especially the brilliance and delight of minds encountering nature, un-hindered by state dictates concerning what can and cannot be said or thought. We’ve seen this in individuals all over the world, and this is what makes us human. We’re a good people, and it seems that the logic of the law, aside from protecting that innate ability to see and reason for ourselves and our individual self-determination which leads to a blossoming of millions and billions of flowers, is also to restrain the occassional loafers who want to use or harm others, such as the technocrats at the WHO and WEF who are now attempting to seize the reigns of power presented by unwieldy governments, for their own insane ventures.
This freedom of thought and perception is not what the dictators of what we should think and say desire for us. They desire that we simply follow dictates: own nothing of our own thoughts, and be happy.