Let me start by making two important points. Personally, I'm aware that as individuals we are vulnerable to being wrong on any given issue; that our conclusions, our world view, our understanding of reality may be highly influenced by cognitive distortions and biases.
Now having acknowledged that truism, at least in my case, I try to understand the world around me as it really is. In other words, my intellectual curiosity is based on my desire to understand any given issue, topic, or subject as accurately as possible.
I think that those who share that approach may then agree that learning is a lifelong process--one that never ends. And as such, those who have also dabbled a bit in the study philosophy will immediately understand Socrates' quote "I only know that I know nothing."
So having said that, (in my own mind) I seek the unvarnished truth. I'd like to think of it (and again, remembering Philosophy 101 from many years ago) following the concept of "objective reality."
Take any issue, any thing, and acknowledge that there is an objective "truth" or "definition" that's independent of anyone's understanding. It just is.
If my goal is to understand the unvarnished truth, and since I understand that I'm just another fallible average person, then I would like for my understanding of reality to be as close as possible to that "objective truth."
And so, when it comes to politics, governance, society, justice, the rule of law, fairness--issues with which I'm very interested in--I follow the same approach. My goal is to know the truth.
But here's the interesting thing... During the last 15-plus years I've been writing and debating and engaging people about these issues, and for most of that time invariably I've been called (by some) a conspiracy theorist, a nut-job, unpatriotic, and other colorful names.
Invariably, I've been called those things when I've put forward certain arguments, like believing that when the country's leaders (Bush Administration) may have committed war crimes that they should be properly investigated and if there is probable cause, that they should be indicted. Or arguing that when powerful Wall Street executives appeared to have committed massive crimes, that they should be properly investigated, and indicted/charged if there is probable cause.
Or coming to the conclusion that the government is setting up a total-information-awareness surveillance state, and that that is a violation of our constitutional rights. Or arguing that detaining U.S. citizens without charge, and indefinitely is a crime and a violation of our constitutional rights. Or arguing that when leaders give themselves the right to assassinate U.S. citizens extra-judicially, that that's a crime, and a violation of our constitutional rights.
Or coming to the conclusion (after careful observation and analysis) that our government and the levers of power have been taken over by corporatist cartels, and if so, then we don't live in a democratic Republic, but in an increasingly fascistic Corporatocracy.
And because I'm only interested in the truth, and in justice, and in the rule of law applied equally and without bias to all citizens, and when I see something as unjust, illegal, criminal, I call it so regardless of who is doing it (regardless of party affiliation, etc.), why is it that I'm the nut-job and the conspiracy theorist?
Or--and here's where I'm seeking input from the reader--am I wrong about my conclusions? We do live in a democratic Republic; there is no corporatist Junta influencing the government; there is no total-information-awareness surveillance system being used to illegally spy on the citizenry; the government hasn't claimed the privilege to detain citizens indefinitely and without charge, or assassinate citizens extra-judicially; force-feeding Guantanamo Base prisoners is not torture and a gross violation of all kinds of human rights conventions.
Which one is it? Of course, my intention in seeking the truth is not to become a "conspiracy theorist" or a "nut-job." That doesn't sound nice.
Do you, gentle reader, feel you understand the truth? I'd like to think that if someone presents a cogent argument that shows me I'm wrong about my conclusions, that I'd be able to modify those conclusions.
After all, I think it would feel better to "know" we live in a true democratic Republic, and that our government is not on the take by corporatist Juntas. That's more comfortable; more convenient.
Can you convince me of it? If you do, I'll be glad to oblige. I'll finally be able to put my tin-foil hat aside.