Categories
BW Member Blog

On government, conspiracy theories and the presumption of innocence

The presumption of innocence, while essential for the protection of individual rights, it is often regarded as an absolute in discussing the possible motives of government action. I’ve had several conversations with my friends where they insisted that any analysis of government intervention should start “in good faith”, from a presumption of no ulterior motives, whereas any overtly expressed skepticism is frowned upon.

I will argue why we should dispose of our good faith when analyzing government measures, even if it opens the gates to conspiracy theorycrafting.

Every citizen displays an intrinsic lack of good will when demanding common sense things like government transparency. We know instinctively that with governmental power over our lives, comes the necessary burden to prove that the exertion of said power is made in the interest of securing our individual natural rights, and not in the interest of strengthening bureaucratic or political sinecures at taxpayer’s expense.

I live in the EU where anyone can witness the year-after-year restriction of individual rights and freedoms, under the guise of “solidarity” and perpetually unclear “European values”, as rhetorically spewed forth by our increasingly authoritarian unelected “betters” from Brussels. Just like the universe is a one-way street towards entropy, the incentives of governmental structures is to also go in one direction: towards its own preservation and expansion (regardless if they’ve outlived their usefulness or not) and the slow-paced restriction of individual freedom. As such, it is only fair that “we, the people” should always regard the government with distrust, and always assume the worst possible outcomes and motives.

Sure, one might be occasionally accused of theorizing conspiracies, but, lest we forget, conspiracy theories have several advantages:

1. Just like the social sciences, conspiracy theories are characterized by a methodological individualism.

2. Conspiracy theories are testable and falsifiable.

3. Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true (Watergate, the Ukraine famine etc.).

4. They are anthropologically realist, assuming what Thomas Sowell called “A restricted vision of human potential” (“Follow the money” is a much more plausible scenario than assuming that politicians and bureaucrats are saints who only have the public’s best interest at heart).

5. Conspiracy theorists are intrinsically anti-establishment. While being anti-establishment is not a quality unto itself (communists and Nazis are anti-establishment before they rise to power), it can be however a big boon in challenging state-sanctioned orthodoxies.

6. Government never had trouble peddling conspiracy theories (Economic downturn due to government intervention? Blame the greedy rich! Rising prices due to inflation via quantitative easing? Blame lack of regulation that fixes prices. And so forth); they are only opposed to them insofar they go against state power.

Government has to always be kept in check by the people that legitimize its power. It seems to me that good will and the presumption of innocence has no place in this sisyphean endeavor.

LATER EDIT: Since english is not my first language, I apologize in advance for any mistakes I’ve made and welcome any corrections in the comment section below. Cheers!

One reply on “On government, conspiracy theories and the presumption of innocence”

Presumption of innocence is a legal principle, not a political or social one. Applying it (the principle) in non-legal situations must be justified by a history of innocence.

For example, in a social situation (say a family), you cannot simply apply the presumption of innocence. You need to take into account the personalities involved and the history of actions by the individuals.

Presumption of innocence, as the author stated, is a principle which is designed to further individual rights. Governments have, historically speaking, been antagonistic to individual rights, particularly outside the US. Why should an institution be granted a presumption which it has historically opposed?

Leave a Reply