Just outside my window is a small grove of pine trees. A family of squirrels live in that tree and I often watch them. Often a boy squirrel will jump on girl squirrel without even so much as buying her a drink. In civilized society, it’s illegal, and rightly so. What makes it acceptable for a squirrel and yet, unacceptable for humans? My cat often watches the squirrels and I often think, if left to his own devices, he would happily disembowel one of them. He’s a tabby, perfectly evolved for hunting. He has a streaked coat which helps him hide in the shadows in the underbrush, sharp, pointed canine teeth for puncturing small prey and razor sharp claws for shredding the same or fending off predators. He’s a potential killing machine.
Why doesn’t he kill, then? The answer is simple. I don’t let him, apart from the occasional hapless bug. I know that if I let him out of the house, he might start hunting squirrels. The next question is, if it’s his natural instinct, why don’t I let him do it? Because he doesn’t need to hunt. I feed him. He has plenty to keep him entertained and, besides, the squirrels have enough to contend with.
The difference between the squirrels, my cat an me is that the squirrels are lawless; they live purely by nature, responding to it in a purely reactive way. They’re hungry, they eat. They’re feisty, they play. They’re… well, you get the idea. My cat would be like that except that he is subject to my rules. I am imposing civilization on him by preventing him from doing that which I consider barbaric (also, living on a busy street corner, I have his safety in mind, but that’s not the point, here). Others have outdoor cats; they let their cats roam the streets at night, get into fights, jump on girl cats, etc. I don’t agree with that, particularly when that cat is living in an area where in which they are not native as they tend to decimate native wildlife.
We, as humans, on the other hand, live in a civilized society where there are laws. Laws are one of the things which define humanity as separate from animals; animals have rules – don’t come near my lair or I’ll tear you apart. That’s a rule. Don’t pet me there. That’s a rule. But formally codified laws, applicable to everyone is a product of man.
There was once a time when laws were not applicable to everyone. This was changed by the adoption of the Magna Carta (Great Charter) by King John of England in 1215 and later echoed in the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Law exists to protect people. By declaring that no one is above the law, this also declares that no one is below it. Unfortunately, many people think this way. Caught up in their own centralized, egotheistic perspective (a new word: believing one’s self to be, or to be equivalent to, God), often people see the law as applying only to them.
Perhaps this is what Shakespeare was thinking when he suggested a draconian solution to problems of jurisprudence in Henry VI. Lawyers tend to dance, just on the edge of the law, knowing exactly how far they can push it. As a result, egotheists tend to view the law as a weapon rather than a shield, something to be used to attack rather than defend. Such people will claim that it’s for their own defence, but that defense is contrived. It stems from an attitude that their actions must be defended (despite their intent) because of their self-perceived superiority.
Traditionally, there have been two well-regarded money-making professions: doctors and lawyers. Most developed nations (with the notable exception of the United States) have nationalized health care (if one mentions the word “nationalized” in this country, people immediately scream “communist”). While it is debatable as to whether or not one is entitled to health care, it has been absolutely documented, ratified and reprinted countless times that everyone is entitled to fair treatment under the law.
And yet, the legal profession remains a dictatorial plutocracy. Judges with tenure at all levels begin to believe themselves not only as enforcers of the law, but creators, or exempted, and corruption ensues. Judgeships should be elected positions, ensuring popular support. Affluent individuals can get high priced attorneys to attack individuals who do not have the means to defend themselves. Often big corporations “pick on the little guy.” Extending government sponsored legal defence protection to the civil sector would help, to be paid for by higher taxes on the overpriced lawyers. A cap on legal fees should also be applied. The profession is massively overpriced and infested with egotheists, essentially reducing legal protection to a privilege of an affluent few.
Unfortunately, as most politicians are lawyers, we can’t expect any change like this, soon. What it requires is a voxocracy (another new word: rule by the most vocal). When the establishment is unwilling to change (usually due to self-interest) then it is only by massive popular support that it can be changed, particularly in the United States where the original drafters of their constitution tried to make change as difficult as possible, only with huge popular support.
The MAGA movement is actually not that big, compared to the overall population of the United States, but they’re loud. They yell and, more than anything, they yell over other people, they yell as loud as they can. They try to make sure no one can hear anything else but them. Why? Because they don’t realize they’re a grain of sand and are greedy until it isn’t good. The answer is, as Theodore Roosevelt said, speak softly but carry a big stick. Be rational but be don’t be a pushover; be prepared to defend yourself. The added caveat from the Church is, are you really defending yourself or are you attacking and trying to make it look like, or convince yourself that it is, defence? This is an important question. MAGA Republicans are arguing that they’re defending Trump’s “victory,” but he lost fair and square; this is attack, not defense. The January 6th rioter claimed that they were “defending” America, but they were attacking the very institution that typifies what the country claims to be founded on and what it is about. Such people are on the hostile defense and it is is a product of egocentricity; they honestly feel endangered because their one, singular, myopic viewpoint is endangered which leads to insecurity and, in an effort to assert their dominance, seek to crush their opponent. In their eyes, they are defending themselves.
Maybe, if people knew this is was why they did such things and understood how their actions are received then they would probably find their lives more fulfilling with this greater understanding of themselves, knowing that they are not a target of personal attack simply because their beliefs are challenged.
