Every legal system so far has been designed only to determine whether a person is guilty of committing a particular crime, and if so, how he should be punished. These legal systems were not created to analyze why the crime occurred, or how we can reduce such crimes in the future. Rather, these legal systems were created to satisfy our emotional craving to hit, slap, and bite the people who irritate us.

A legal system is a concept; it is a "social technology". As with physical technology, such as cell phones, airplanes, and plasma torches, social technology is useful only to the people who are capable of understanding it, and are willing to use it properly.

It is dangerous to give physical technology to people who don't have the ability to use it properly. Everybody understands this concept in regards to children. For example, every adult understands that it is dangerous to let children play with guns, knives, and razor blades. However, every culture is oblivious to the concept that social technology can be dangerous with people who don't know how to use it.

Every culture promotes the theory that every adult is capable of making excellent decisions about voting, and every adult will become an excellent juror. In reality, it is dangerous to give people social technology that they don't understand, or have no desire to use properly. The Laws document pointed out that laws are useful only to people who can understand them, and are willing to use them properly, and this concept applies to a trial.

Exmaple: Is Bridget Macron a transgender man?

A trial was conducted in France to determine whether two women were correct that the French president's wife, Brigitte Trogneux, is actually Jean-Michel Trogneux, the man that she claims is her brother. The trial concluded that the women were incorrect, and they were ordered to pay €8000 to the president's wife, and €5000 to Jean-Michel.

The journalists have not provided much detail about the trial, and there are some contradictions in their reports. For example, this news article says that Jean-Michel Trogneux "participated" in the trial, but most reports claim that he was not at the trial, so how did he "participate" in it?

Instead of having both Jean-Michel and Bridget appear at the trial together to prove that they are different people, this news report claims that the only proof that was offered during the trial is a piece of paper that shows that Jean-Michel voted in an election.

If Bridget is really Jean-Michel, then the French government is either deceiving the world, or they are blackmailed into promoting the deception. Therefore, the French government, or the people who are blackmailing them, are likely to put a lot of effort into protecting their lies with false evidence, or by bribing, intimidating, or blackmailing people involved with the trial. This means that a trial to resolve this issue should set high standards for evidence to reduce the chances that they become deceived with false evidence, and the trial must set high standards for the judge and other people involved with the trial.

Is a piece of paper enough evidence to conclude that Jean-Michel and Bridget are different people? Does it also prove that Bridget is female?

What is "evidence"? What is "proof"? When is evidence "conclusive" or "undeniable", and when is it "inadequate" or "worthless"?

If a man and woman had appeared at the trial, and if the man claimed to be Jean-Michel and the woman claimed to be Bridget, would that prove that they are independent people? No, not unless we can verify that the man is truly her brother, which would require a DNA analysis, and it would have to be an honest DNA analysis.

Although most of us do not participate in trials, and many people do not vote in political elections, each of us routinely votes and conducts trials in our mind in order to resolve the problems in our personal life. For example, we routinely analyze people and "vote" on who to trust, be suspicious of, use as a role model, become friends with, and marry.

We also conduct trials in our mind to determine whether there is evidence of heaven, or whether evolution makes more sense. We also conduct trials to determine whether we should be a vegan, and whether we should eat olive oil, lard, corn oil, or coconut oil. We conduct trials to determine what to believe about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, feminism, the Apollo moon landing, whether Haitian  immigrants are eating pet cats and dogs, and whether humans are causing global warming because of our production of carbon dioxide.

All of us have also conducted a trial in our mind to determine whether our DNA should be considered personal and private, or whether the police should be allowed to create a database of everybody's DNA. Most people are allowing DNA to be secretive, and this is allowing a lot of crime, confusion, and corruption.

If the police were maintaining a publicly accessible DNA database, and ensuring that it was honest, there would be no dispute over whether Bridget Macron is male or female, or who her children are related to. We would also be able to determine whether Michelle Obama is male or female, and who her children are related to. We would also be able to figure out whether Prince Harry and Prince Charles have the same father. The police would also be able to solve a lot of crimes very quickly.

A DNA database would be extremely useful, but most people cannot understand that, or they oppose such a database because they do not want us to know the truth about them, their friends, or family members.

All of us take the role of a judge, jury, and voter on a routine basis, but most people make idiotic decisions because they do not have have much control over their emotions; cannot look critically at themselves; do not want to think or learn; do not want to look favorably at alternative opinions; and are not very intelligent.

The minority of the population that can make better decisions than the majority are only "less idiotic". If there were aliens in another solar system who have been evolving much longer than us, then even the most intelligent humans would appear to be idiots compared to them.

For example, aliens would regard the most intelligent scientists as idiots for believing that they have proof that the Big Bang is an explanation of the universe; that dinosaurs went extinct because a meteor hit the earth; and that there are such things as quarks and God particles.

It is idiotic to believe that most people are useful as jurors, voters, judges, or scientists. Most people need guidance, but the people who provide the guidance are only slightly less stupid and ignorant than the majority, so they cannot make perfect decisions. They will make decisions that are less idiotic. This requires that the public be able to deal with the concept that our leaders will never be perfect.

Or courts will never provide perfect analyses of crimes, and our government officials will never make perfect policies, and our scientists will never create perfect theories. Our goal must be to improve our situation, not expect perfection.

This constitution changes the situation dramatically by requiring the Courts Ministry to analyze crimes for the purpose of understanding why they occurred, and to suggest methods of reducing crimes in the future.

A trial is similar to the analysis that engineers give to the wreckage of a plane that has crashed. Specifically, the purpose of the trial is to understand why crimes are occurring, and how we can reduce them in the future.

This requires the trial to analyze the people who are involved with a crime to determine what is different about their genetics and environment. It is also an investigation of whether our culture has encouraged the crime, and whether altering our culture can reduce such crimes.

A trial requires a judge to pass judgment on the value of the people involved, and determine whether any of them need to be evicted, put on restrictions, or euthanized. This is essentially what businesses do when an employee is accused of bad behavior. Specifically, the management investigates the accusations and passes judgment on whether any of the employees need to be fired or moved to some other department.

No culture believes that they can reduce obesity by punishing the "food pushers", the overweight people, or the farmers in foreign nations that produce food, but the American culture believes that we can stop drug abuse by punishing "drug pushers", drug users, and the farmers in foreign nations that produce drugs.

However, every culture continues to insist that we can reduce crimes by punishing people, even though this concept has a 100% failure rate. Although a few people stopped committing crimes after being punished, the punishments have done nothing to prevent or reduce crime. There is more crime today than there was centuries ago.

The only way to reduce a problem is to understand what causes it. For example:

•		The only way to reduce problems with food is to figure out why only some people eat so much food that they become overweight, other people eat so much unhealthy food that they become sickly, and other people eat so little food that they become anorexic.
•		The only way to reduce problems with alcohol, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, caffeine, and other drugs is to figure out why only some people want to use those drugs, and of those people, why only some of them use those drugs excessively.
•		The only way to reduce divorce, loneliness, schizophrenia, diabetes, and migraine headaches is to figure out why only some people have those problems.

Crimes are not being committed by a random sample of the human population. While most people commit insignificant crimes, such as violating traffic laws, only a certain number of people are committing burglaries, rapes, murders, kidnappings, blackmail, and other destructive crimes. We must analyze those people and our culture, to determine what is different about their genetics and environment, and how our culture influences crime. An example of how our culture can encourage crime is the glorification of pirates and other criminals in movies.

This concept applies to all of our problems. For example, the people who become overweight are not a random sample of the population. Only certain people become overweight, so reducing the problem requires understanding what is different about their genetics and environment, and it requires understanding how our culture influences our eating habits. An example of how our culture influences our eating habits is that our free enterprise system allows businesses to exploit us.

In order to determine why only some people are having problems, we must eliminate secrecy so that we can study everybody as thoroughly as zoologists study chimpanzees and wolves.

We must analyze everybody's behavior, genetic characteristics, and environment, and then compare ourselves to one another to figure out what is different about our genetics and environment, and how those differences are resulting in different behavior.

We cannot create false images of ourselves to impress other people. We must regard all of the information about our behavior, medical history, school performance, genetic characteristics, and environment as public knowledge, and as a necessary and valuable resource for understanding humans.

We need to gather as much data about ourselves as we can tolerate. We should install video cameras around the city so that computers can analyze how we interact with people, the weather, animals, pollen, and food. Eventually the software that analyzes the video will be advanced enough to provide useful analyses of our physical activities, and how we walk, run, sit, ride bicycles, swim, and eat.

In addition to helping us understand ourselves, we will be able to get a better understanding of apes and other animals because we inherited our characteristics from them.

After Ahmaud Arbery was killed, some people pointed out that he had committed crimes in his past, and so had his brother and some other family members. Other people responded that his past behavior, and that of his relatives, should be ignored.

Some of the journalists who insisted that we ignore Arbery's previous crimes did not ignore the past behavior of the police. For example, the journalists who wrote this article described two "recent scandals" of the city's police department:

	1)	An attempt by the police to cover up a case in which a detective was accused of having sex with an informant.
	2)	A police chase in which somebody died.

Those journalists want us to ignore Arbery's previous crimes, but they want to expose and exaggerate the most trivial mistakes of the police.

Every culture requires the police to meet high standards, and the police are cannot hide their mistakes or bad behavior, but no culture requires the citizens to meet similar standards. This constitution change the situation by requiring everybody to be treated more equally. Everybody is expected to behave properly, not just the police, and nobody is allowed to hide their past behavior.

Before we agree to have surgery, we prefer to know the history of the surgeon, such as whether he has had a history of failed surgeries. We do not want surgeons to have the right to hide their failures. We would judge a surgeon by his past performance.

If robots were available for personal use, we would not want the businesses that sold robots to have the right to hide the history of the robots. We would want to know if a robot is new or used, whether it has been successful with its chores, and how much maintenance it has needed. We would judge a robot by its past performance.

This constitution promotes that same attitude with people. Specifically, nobody has the right to hide their history, or deceive us with false images of themselves. Instead, everybody has the right to know the truth about other people. This allows us to make better decisions about who to choose for a friend, spouse, coworker, and neighbor.

Every culture has evolved to give us what we want, but some people have more influence over culture than others because some people are more actively involved in trying to control our culture. We have an expression for this concept: The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

The "squeaky humans" are usually the people with defective minds. For example, the people who have the greatest incentive to get involved with determining our customs about secrecy are those who want secrecy because they are ashamed of their behavior, or suffering from mental disorders.

By comparison, the better behaved people don't have as much concern about secrecy, so they have less of a desire to get involved with setting the nation's policy for secrecy.

The apathetic people are allowing the mentally disturbed people and the selfish organizations to have more influence over our culture than they should have. To prevent this problem, this constitution gives the government total control of culture. The ministers must ignore what the people and organizations want, and design culture for the human race. People who want to make changes to our culture must post a document in the Suggestions category to explain its advantages and disadvantages.

During my life, I have occasionally heard a person accusing somebody of being a snitch, rat fink, tattletale, or stool pigeon. However, the people who expose bad behavior should be praised because they are behaving like a gardener who is maintaining a city park; a technician who is maintaining a jet engine; and a dentist who is maintaining the health of our teeth.

The culture of a nation is an indication of the type of minds that the people have because every culture has evolved to fit the desires of its people. The squeaky wheels have more influence than the passive and apathetic people, so the larger the percentage of "squeaky wheels", the more pressure that culture will have to criticize honest people for being tattletales, allow secrecy, give pity to criminals, and glorify pirates and bank robbers.

By comparison, the more honest and respectable a group of people are, the more pressure their culture will have to disapprove of bad behavior, and praise and be proud of people who expose and stop crime.

Japan and Germany have low levels of pity for criminals because they don't have as many criminals influencing their culture. The USA, India, Russia, and mainland China have a lot of pity and tolerance for destructive and obnoxious behavior because those nations have a higher percentage of badly behaved people.

This constitution requires the Behavior Ministry to set standards of behavior that are higher than those in Germany and Japan.

The people who expose criminals are given credit for taking an active role in helping to maintain society. However, they must expose destructive behavior rather than something insignificant. For an extreme example, it would be detrimental for a person to complain to the police that a person has put the forks on the wrong side of the plates at a dinner table. A person's complaints are put into his entry of the People database, so idiotic complaints will lower their social credit score and hurt their reputation.

Many women have complained that the police are not doing a good job of investigating rape accusations, but rape is one of the more difficult crimes to deal with because there is usually no evidence to prove that a rape actually occurred.

Another reason it is difficult to deal with rape cases is that many of the rapists are working in the police departments, courts, media companies, and government agencies, which allows them to suppress some of the accusations and or manipulate some of the investigations. A British organization claims that a British policeman is accused of rape at an average of once per week.

To make the situation worse, some women have lied about being raped, such as Renee Skoglund. This organization believes that between 2% and 8% of the rape accusations are false.

Perhaps one of the most common false accusations in the world during the past century are from Jews who claim to be victims of hate crimes or anti-Semitism, such as this Jew who was caught painting swastikas on his house.

False accusations are destructive to a society partly because they waste the labor and resources of the police departments and courts, but mainly because they cause us to become suspicious of people who claim to be victims of a crime. For example, the women who lie about rape cause us to be suspicious of the women who claim to be raped.

The most destructive of the false accusations are those that come from the influential members of society, such as FBI officials, journalists, government officials, ADL executives, and the SPLC. The reason is because the we have an emotional desire to trust our leaders, so we are likely to believe their false accusations.

Many people want society to be intolerant of rape, anti-Semitism, and many other crimes, but not many people want false accusations of those crimes to be considered as serious crimes. The existing cultures either ignore false accusations, or they are treated as trivial crimes. For example, Jews want people arrested for Holocaust Denial, but they do not want to arrest Jews,  such as the Rosenblatts, for lying about being a Holocaust Survivor.

Everybody wants slander to be illegal, but none of the police agencies, courts, lawyers, FBI officials, or government officials want to investigate the atrocious accusations that are being made about influential people, such as the accusations from Mariah Careys sister that her mother and sister had gotten involved with Hollywood murder rituals and pedophile activities. She even claimed in court documents that her mother allowed men to have sex with her when she was 10 years old. However, the people in influential positions ignored her accusations.

Her accusations should be investigated, and if she is lying about them, she should be arrested. Likewise, our security agencies should investigate the accusations that Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, and other influential people in Hollywood, government, universities, and the media are pedophiles, and if those accusations are lies, the people who made them should be arrested.

This constitution sets higher standards for people in influential positions. They must investigate accusations, and false accusations are unacceptable crimes.

There is no dividing line between a "false accusation", an "insult", and a "stupid remark", but the Courts Ministries required to make that distinction, and evict or euthanize the people that they conclude are making false accusations for the purpose of hurting or manipulating people.

Example: The accusation by the New York Times

The New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, but OpenAI claims that the New York Times deliberately used their software in a deceptive, dishonest manner to make it violate copyright laws.

If OpenAI is correct, then the New York Times is analogous to a man who kills his wife, puts her body in his neighbor's home, and then calls the police to accuse his neighbor of kidnapping and killing his wife.

As mentioned in several other documents, our crime policies developed to fit our emotional craving to hurt the people who annoy us. The more upset we become by a person, the more we want to punish him. That emotion caused us to create the concept that "the punishment should fit the crime."

The crimes that stimulate a lot of anger, such as murder and pedophilia, cause us to want to hurt the criminal to an extreme, but we are likely to ignore a criminal who commits a crime that doesn't stimulate anger.

Certain types of crimes can stimulate confusion rather than anger. For example, when someone accuses the AI software is ignoring copyrights, most people become confused rather than angry, so they tend to ignore the crime rather than want to hurt somebody.

This constitution requires the Courts Ministry to use intellectual reasoning for all decisions, rather than the level of anger we experience from a crime.

If the Courts Ministry had to deal with the accusation by the New York Times, and if they determined that OpenAI is correct that the New York Times is deceptive, then the people responsible for that deception must be considered as unacceptable criminals, and they must be evicted or euthanized.

Although that crime does not stimulate much anger, it must be considered intolerable because false and deceptive accusations are destructive to society. Furthermore, that type of deception interferes with the development of technology.

The Courts Ministry arranges for trials to be an analysis of the crime and the people involved with it. This includes analyzing the information in the People database about each person's life.

There is no way to avoid bias or mistakes, so this Constitution puts the bias in favor of the people who are the best behaved and the most valuable. If a person is worried about being falsely accused of a crime, he will reduce that possibility by becoming one of the best behaved and most valuable citizens.

By analyzing a person's history, in addition to analyzing the crime, we are more likely to learn something about how and why crimes are occurring, and what we might be able to do to reduce them. For example, an analysis of the killing of Ahmaud Arbery would show that Arbery, and some of his family members and friends, were involved with crimes, which is evidence that Arbery is not a typical person. Rather, he is the child of people with low-quality genetic characteristics, and he was more destructive, rebellious, and violent than a typical person. He is more evidence that low-quality parents are more likely to produce low-quality children who become low-quality adults.

An analysis of Arbery's life can help scientists (and eventually software) do a better job of identifying the badly behaved children before they become troublesome adults.

There is not much information about the men who chased after Arbery, but an analysis of their history would undoubtedly provide us with some valuable information, also. For example, why did they chase after Arbery instead of call the police? It could be because they, like millions of people in the USA, do not believe their police or legal system can protect them from crime. If our legal system was more effective, then those men might have called the police rather than chase after Arbery.

In order to improve our legal system, this Constitution requires the courts to analyze crimes for the purpose of understanding and reducing them, rather than to punish criminals. This constitution prohibits all types of punishments. The pupose of the courts is to improve the lives of the people, not to get revenge on criminals.

The people who behave in an unusual manner are not committing a crime, but the Courts Ministry is required to arrange for a trial to investigate every person with unusual behavior.

As mentioned earlier in this document, the purpose of a trial understand people and culture, not to punish people. Therefore, the trial of an unusual person is to understand what is different about him. This concept is similar to a farmer who investigates a cow that is behaving differently than the other cows. He does not want to punish the cow. Rather, he wants to understand why the cow is behaving differently.

We are a team, not individual animals, so we should not ignore our team members who are behaving differently than the rest of us, especially when they are irritating other people or showing signs of being unhappy.

We should analyze people with bizarre behavior to determine whether their characteristics are due to inheritable genetic characteristics, or whether they are suffering from some environmental issue, such as concussions, toxic chemicals, allergies, or improper nutrition.

A farmer investigates the strange behavior of one of his animals; a mechanic investigates the strange behavior of an airplane engine; and a computer programmer investigates the strange behavior of his software. The Courts Ministry should investigate the strange behavior of people.

We should not ignore, tolerate, or insult the people who have strange behavior. We should try to understand human behavior, and deal with the people whose behavior is inappropriate.

For example, John Orr is believed to have set almost 2000 fires over 30 years while he was working for a fire department, but the court was not concerned about why he did that. Instead, the court was only concerned with whether he was guilty of the arsons, and if so, how to punish him.

This constitution requires the courts to analyze the people who are guilty of crimes. The purpose is to understand what is different about them in order to determine whether there is some way we can prevent, reduce, or predict such bad behavior.

For example, was John Orr's bad behavior due to some environmental issue that we can prevent or reduce, such as toxic chemicals, radiation, malnutrition, or concussions? Or was he suffering from a genetic characteristic that his children or grandchildren might inherit?

When John Orr tried to become a Los Angeles police officer, he was rejected for failing the psychological evaluation, and when he tried to get a job at Los Angeles Fire Department, he was rejected while he was a student at the fire academy.

No culture cares what happens to the people who are rejected by the police departments, militaries, businesses, schools, and other organizations. Every organization dumps their human trash into somebody else's neighborhood, and nobody cares what happens to that trash.

John Orr eventually got a job at the Glendale Fire Department, which had the lowest salaries in Los Angeles County, so they may have been so desperate for employees that they were willing to take "wretched refuse" and "huddled masses" that the other fire departments had rejected. If all fire departments that had equally high standards, he never would have become a fireman.

Furthermore, if all nations had standards as high as the fire departments, he would have been rejected by every nation, and would have been sent to the City of Exiles.

One interesting aspect of John Orr is that he had written a fictional book about a fireman who was an arsonist. Although he said the book was fictional, it appears to be based on his life. His book could be an indication that he was suffering from low self-esteem, perhaps partly because of the difficulty he had in getting a job, and so he got involved with setting fires in order to make himself feel talented and intelligent. He may have written the book to boast about his crimes.

As pointed out in many documents, men have a tremendous craving to be at the top of the hierarchy, so we are always looking for ways to feel important and boast about ourselves. Therefore, we must be concerned that some of the boys and men might react to disappointments and failures by doing idiotic or destructive things in an attempt to make themselves feel better about themselves.

For example, some people seem to be committing crimes simply to make themselves feel intelligent. And some people seem to commit crimes in order to feel as if they are so high up in the hierarchy that they can do whatever they want, and are not submissive to their parents, the police, or the government.

By eliminating secrecy and analyzing people, we will be able to make better decisions about how to alter our culture to reduce bad behavior, and make it easier to identify and deal with the people who are potentially dangerous.

Every culture promotes the attitude of altering culture to fit the worst behaved people. For example, every culture tries to reduce burglaries by installing locks and security systems on homes and businesses, and the Muslims have reacted to the men who have trouble controlling their sexual cravings by requiring the women to cover themselves in order to avoid stimulating the men.

Our attempts to prevent burglary makes our cities ugly, and is an inconvenience to honest people.		Making women cover themselves is an absurd method to deal with badly behaved men.

Our attempts to prevent crimes are causing everybody to suffer, and they are failing to prevent crimes. This constitution changes the situation dramatically by requiring culture be designed for the City Elders.

Instead of trying to prevent the badly behaved people from abusing us, the courts must evict those people, or put them on restrictions.

A trial has only one judge who analyzes the crime, and makes a decision about what to do about it. There are no lawyers or juries. The judge has access to any information he needs, and he can interview anybody he pleases. If he believes the case is complicated, he can ask for one or more judges to get involved and provide advice, but he must make the final decision. His decision is a document that he posts in the Explanations category.

The US Constitution allows people to become lawyers and judges simply by memorizing laws and punishments because the only concern of the US legal system is whether a person has violated a law, and if so, how he should be punished.

By comparison, this Constitution requires a trial to be an analysis of the crime and the people involved with it, and nobody can be punished. therefore, the judges must have an understanding of human behavior, and an ability to provide an intelligent analysis of crimes and people. That in turn requires that a judge have an understanding of how our behavior is affected by the intellectual and emotional characteristics we inherited from the apes, and how we are affected by such environmental issues as peer pressure, a lack of sleep, our culture, and allergies.

A judge is a zoologist who studies humans, and who is trying to find a way to reduce bad behavior, improve our relationships, and make our social environment more pleasant. The people who want to be judges must show some success in analyzing human behavior and crimes. They could acquire that type of success in different ways, such as providing intelligent analyses of previous crimes; finding improvements to social activities; finding a way to improve the work environment of a factory or office; or finding a way to improve the environment of a school classroom.

It is not necessary for a judge to memorize the laws. A modern society has too many laws for a person to memorize, so it is more sensible to put the laws in a database, and then train some software to make it easy for us to find information about laws.

A judge should not have any emotional connections to the people involved with a trial, and he should not be under pressure to produce any particular conclusion. In order to improve the chances that judges are unbiased, this constitution advocates letting computers select the judges for a trial.

A computer can determine whether a potential judge has a connection to the defendant or victim by looking through the People database to find out who the person is related to, married to, and divorced from. When the city has a tracking system installed, the computer can also look at the tracking information to determine who the judge spends his leisure time with, and who he has meals with.

All of that information will allow a computer to create a list of judges who have no connection to the people involved with the crime. The computer can then pick one of them at random.

The people who want to be judges can do so on a temporary basis. Those judges will have some other full-time job, and their names will be in a list of available judges.

When the computer chooses a judge for a particular trial, he will accept it if he is interested in becoming a judge at that time and for that case. He then becomes a judge, and when the case is finished, he returns to his normal job.

If he is busy with some other task, or if he is not in the mood to be a judge, or if he does not want to deal with that particular case, then he can turn down the opportunity and the computer will select somebody else.

The advantage to allowing people to be temporary judges is that there are some people who do not want to be full-time judges, but are willing to do it once in a while. This allows more people to be involved with trials, which gives us a wider variety of analyses compared to having only a few judges. It also makes it more difficult for a small group of people to secretly manipulate the legal system.

Putting a person into the role of a judge creates the same endless loop dilemma that occurs when we allow a person to be a voter. Specifically, who determines whether a judge is doing a good job? And who determines whether that person is doing a good job of judging the judges?

The US legal system avoids this complexity by not having anybody judge the judges. This allows the absurd situation in which Supreme Court judges can keep their job throughout their entire life, even if they are suffering from strokes or Alzheimer's.

To improve upon the situation, the Courts Minister is authorized and responsible for hiring judges, and he is required to routinely replace the worst performing judge, which requires that he pass judgment on which of them is doing the worst job.

The judges are restricted to being between the ages of 35 and 70 for the same reason as the ministers.

When the judges make decisions about cases, they must post their decisions in the Explanations database to allow everybody to pass judgment on which of the judges provides the most intelligent analyses of crimes, and the most intelligent suggestions on how to reduce them.

The Courts Minister must routinely replace the worst performing judge, and he can use their explanations as one method to determine which of them is the worst.

In the USA, trials often require months or years to complete, and if the defendant does not like the decision, he can often start another trial that requires more months or years to complete. By comparison, businesses resolve disputes with employees very rapidly.

This constitution advocates completing trials within a month. By eliminating secrecy, having computers track everybody's location, and saving security video in the city's computer, there will be so much information about what people have been doing that less time will be needed to gather information about a crime.

Our ancestors needed a lot of time for a trial because people had to spend months walking around and riding horses in order to talk to witnesses, and they needed a lot of time to write information on paper with feathers that they dipped into jars of ink.

Modern technology provides us with access to a tremendous amount of information about a crime, and at a very rapid rate, and we can create documents by speaking to a computer and letting the computer create the text. Therefore, we can accomplish trials at a much more rapid pace today.

Although a trial should be completed within a month, we cannot force a case to be completed within a specific time because there are always exceptions. Therefore, a judge is allowed to ask the Courts Minister for more time when he can show that he truly needs more time to process the data, and that he is not extending the case simply to delay it, which is a tactic used in the USA as a way of causing witnesses to forget what they saw, and allowing criminals to confuse, threaten, blackmail, or murder the witnesses.

Since punishments are forbidden, a judge has to choose one of the following options:

•		Unsolvable. If the judge does not believe there is enough evidence to understand the dispute, then he can dismiss it as "unsolvable". This can happen when a crime occurs in an area where there is inadequate security video, and no other evidence. If some evidence appears in the future, or if future technology allows evidence to be uncovered, then the case can be re-examined.
•		Cultural flaw. If the judge believes that the crime is due to culture, then he can blame culture rather than people. For an example of this concept, sometime around 1992 a woman asked me and some of her other friends to take a walk along the beach near my house, so I drove everybody to the location she requested, and I parked my car. When we came back, there was a parking ticket on my windshield. I had no idea that UCSB owned the land along the beach, and that they owned the parking lot and the road that led to it, and that they required a permit to park in that area. The area is several kilometers away from the University, and surrounded by vacant land, a creek, and the ocean. The Google Street map shows that parking lot is just a large, dirt area. It does not look like a restricted parking area to me. People were frequently parking there to go surfing or to visit the beach, and it never occurred to me that they might be UCSB students or employees with parking permits. Sometime between 2007 and 2017, UCSB installed a gate at entrance to the parking lot, as seen in the Google map images below. The entrance in 2007. The entrance in 2017 I cannot remember what the entrance looked like in 1992, but UCSB probably had a sign somewhere in the area that said that a parking permit was needed, but in 1992 many of the student parking areas at UCSB were free to the public on weekends and evenings. So if I had seen that sign, which I do not remember seeing, I would have assumed that the parking would be free since it was a weekend, and because the area was a public beach, not school classrooms or administrative offices. This is an example of how crimes were being committed because of a cultural problem, rather than because people wanted to commit crimes.
•		Undesirable behavior. The judge might conclude that a person is behaving badly, but not badly enough to do anything other than mention the event in his database entry. That will lower his social credit score, but otherwise not have much of an effect on his life.
•		Unacceptable behavior. A judge might conclude that a person's behavior is unacceptable, in which case he can put the person on restrictions, such as restricting him to certain neighborhoods or jobs, or restricting him from having access to certain items, such as drones and electric vehicles, or prohibiting him from certain areas of the city, or certain restaurants, museums, social activities, parks, or swimming areas. The restrictions are not intended to punish the person. Rather, they are to prevent him from irritating other people. They are analogous to restricting children and animals to certain areas, activities, and material items.
•		Intolerable behavior. A judge might conclude that a person's behavior is so bad that he should be evicted. If no other city wants him, he is sent to the City of Exiles.

The judge behaves in a similar manner as a farmer who has noticed that some of his animals are fighting with each other, or that some of his peach trees are dying. The farmer does not punish the animals or peach trees. Rather, he tries to understand why they are having problems, and he tries to figure out how to reduce such problems.

Everybody is permitted to object to a court decision, regardless of whether they are directly involved with the case. The purpose of providing everybody with this option is to encourage people to get involved with passing judgment on whether the judges are making a wise decision, thereby helping to ensure that the judges are truly bringing improvements to the city.

If somebody doesn't like a court's decision, he has a month to explain his disagreements in a document, post it on the Suggestions site, and hope that one of the judges or ministers agrees with his analysis and advocates re-examining the case.

If any of the judges or ministers approves of his suggestion, then he must post his request to re-examine the case in the Requests category, and the Courts Minister will make the final decision about whether the case will be re-examined. If the Courts Minister rejects the re-examination proposal, he must explain why in a document that he posts in the Explanations category.

By having everybody post documents, rather than discuss issues in secret, we can pass judgment on which of them is providing the most intelligent analyses and suggestions.

People can object to a particular trial only once in order to prevent the situation that is occurring in the USA; namely, people who appeal a case over and over.

The document about intellectual trials points out that since there is no way to kill a person with information, we assume that information is less important to us than food, but information actually has more of an effect on our health and life than food.

For example, if we provide a person with a poisonous mushroom, we kill only one person, but if we provide a person with some false information, he can spread that information to other people, thereby causing a lot of people to develop destructive goals, behavior, or attitudes.

An example is how a few Jews spread the false information that 19 Arabs living in caves attacked the USA on September 11. That false information resulted in an enormous number of deaths, mutilations, pollution, and destruction.

Food keeps our body alive, but information influences our opinions, our goals in life, and our social activities. Information is much more important to us than food, so we should have very high standards for information.

All current cultures allow every person and organization to produce information that is false, deceptive, hypocritical, and nonsensical. For example, some Jews have been caught lying about the Holocaust, but they are not considered to be criminals.

The only time somebody is held accountable for what he says is when somebody complains that he has been slandered. However, although we have laws prohibiting slander, most people are so incapable of dealing with the complexities of modern life that we prohibit only the slander that the ordinary people can understand. This allows people and organizations to slander one another with accusations that are vague and confusing, such as climate change denier, anti-Semite, misogynist, sexist, Holocaust denier, and white supremacist.

No legal system considers a person to be committing a crime when he accuses somebody of being a racist or an anti-Semite. Some nations have so many people who cannot deal with the modern world that they have been convinced by Jews to create laws against "Holocaust Denial", rather than have a law that prohibits accusations of Holocaust Denial.

This constitution holds everybody accountable for their accusations. The Courts Ministry is required to investigate accusations and pass judgment on whether they are valid. People who deliberately make false accusations in order to hurt or manipulate somebody are considered to be criminals who are committing a crime that is worse than giving somebody poisoned food.

For an example of how the Courts Ministry would respond to accusations, the National Center for Science Education has this document that accuses people of being "climate change deniers", and they claim:

	•	Science education is under attack—again.
	•	These deniers attempt to sabotage science education with fringe ideas, pseudoscience, and outright lies.

If a citizen posted a suggestion that those accusations be investigated for accuracy, and if somebody in the Courts Ministry agreed, the Courts Ministry would arrange for an intellectual trial in which the author becomes the defendant and must explain his accusations, and the citizen who posted the suggestion is the plaintiff.

The Courts Ministry would select somebody to be a judge for the trial, and that judge would decide whether the defendant has made inappropriate accusations. Three of the possible outcomes of the trial are:

1)		The defendant is innocent If the judge concludes that the defendant has made sensible accusations, then he would pass judgment on why the plaintiff complained about the accusations. If he judge determines that the plaintiff was confused, he might tell the defendant to edit his document in order to clarify that section.
2)		The plaintiff is a criminal If the judge decides that the plaintiff was angry with, or envious of, the defendant, and trying to cause trouble for him, then the judge would conclude that the plaintiff is guilty of a crime. The judge would then have to pass judgment on what to do with the plaintiff.
3)		The defendant is guilty If the judge agrees with the plaintiff that the defendant made nonsensical accusations, the judge must then pass judgment on whether the defendant did it on purpose, in which case the defendant would be considered to be committing a crime. The judge would then have to pass judgment on what to do with the defendant. If, instead, the judge determined that the defendant made honest mistakes, perhaps due to ignorance, then the judge would require the document to be edited, but the defendant would not be considered guilty of a crime. However, the event would be listed in the defendant's database entry, so it would affect his intellectual reputation.

The point of this example is that the judges analyze crimes in order to understand them so that we can improve our social environment, not to punish anybody.

When engineers encounter problems, such as an experiment that fails, an airplane that crashes, or a chemical factory that explodes, they investigate the problem in order to understand why the problem occurred, and to reduce such problems in the future.

An engineer would be fired for incompetence if he continuously failed to understand and reduce problems, thereby allowing the same problems to occur over and over. We must treat judges in the same manner. Specifically, judges should help us to understand and reduce crimes, and those who cannot should be considered incompetent and worthless, and they should be replaced.

Imagine a person calling a plumber to fix his leaky sink, and after the plumber is finished and goes home, the person discovers that the sink is leaking in the same manner. He then calls the plumber to fix it again, and after the plumber is finished and gone home, the person discovers the sink is still leaking in the same manner. Imagine the person repeating this process throughout his life, and then his children repeat it, and so on, for centuries.

This is a situation that is happening in every nation's legal system. Our police departments and courts are supposed to be reducing crime, but they fail continuously. For example, the US government has provided us with a Do-Not-Call list, but none of the government officials are fired for continuously failing to enforce it.

None of the judges, lawyers, or FBI officials are helping us understand or reduce crime, but they never get fired for incompetence. This Constitution changes the situation by requiring the Courts Ministry to routinely replace the judges who are the least useful in helping us to understand and reduce crime.

In addition to allowing citizens and organizations to file lawsuits for enormous amounts of money for crimes, the US legal system also allows us to file lawsuits to demand money from accidents and mistakes, such as when a surgeon makes a mistake during a medical operation.

Even more absurd, the US legal system allows us to profit from our own carelessness and idiotic decisions. A famous example is the woman who spilled coffee in her lap while trying to drink it in her automobile, and demanded money from McDonald's for making the coffee too hot.

There is no right or wrong way for a legal system to deal with a woman who spills coffee in her lap. The US legal system has been designed by people with a strong "feel sorry for me" attitude, but this Constitution promotes the attitude that everybody should meet high standards of behavior, and everybody should be responsible for their mistakes rather than blame other people.

When people have accidents or make mistakes, we should investigate why it happened, but for the purpose of  finding ways to reduce the accidents, rather than to allow people who are self-destructive, stupid, and irresponsible to profit from their mistakes.

We want robots to function perfectly. If we had a robot in our home to work for us, we would be annoyed if it was occasionally dropping items on the floor or bumping into us.

We expect robots and other machines to operate perfectly, but we cannot expect humans to be perfect. It might even be impossible for a person to get through an entire day without making at least one mistake. All of us are occasionally bumping into things, spilling things, dropping things, putting something in the wrong location, cutting ourselves, forgetting to do something, and accidentally spraying saliva as we laugh, eat, and talk. If a robot were to make as many mistakes as we do, we would complain about it.

We must expect everybody to make mistakes. It is detrimental to allow people to profit from mistakes. A legal system should react to mistakes by looking for a way to reduce them. For example, we can reduce the number of people who cut themselves with kitchen knives by having people eat at restaurants, thereby reducing the number of people who handle knives.

When a crime has a victim, the trial must investigate why that person became a victim. Although some people become victims as a result of bad luck, history shows us that most crimes are not random. Rather, certain people are more likely to become a victim.

For example, many feminists insist that men are raping women at random, but that is a false accusation. Most of the women who are raped are the "low-quality" women, and they associate with low quality men. The phrase "low-quality" refers to their genetics, not their social status, education, material wealth, or fame. There are a lot of low-quality men and women who are very wealthy and famous, especially in Hollywood and the government.

For an example of why some women are raped, the women who cannot control their alcohol or drug use, or who have mental disorders, are much more likely to get raped because they are likely to associate with men who have mental disorders and low self-control.

Likewise, the children who tend to be abused by their parents or other people are not a random sample of the children. Rather, they tend to be
 the children who are the most irritating. They tend to be the genetically inferior children.

We should not assume that the victim of a crime is innocent. Instead, we should analyze why he became a victim rather than somebody else.

By understanding why some people become victims, we will have a better understanding of why crimes are occurring, which will help us develop better solutions to reduce crime. If, instead, we assume that criminals are choosing victims at random, we will never acquire an accurate understanding of why crimes are occurring, and that will prevent us from reducing crime.

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier in this document, some people lie about being victims. This is a trick that Jews frequently use to manipulate us. Jews often instigate crimes, and then claim to be a victim of it. For example, an Israeli posted this remark in September 2024 that says:


It is true that the Israelis are a small group of people surrounded by a lot of angry Arabs, but it is not because Jews are innocent victims.

Lichtenstein has only 40,000 people, and they are surrounded by hundreds of millions of Europeans, but they are not oppressed or hated. They are not suffering from "decades long attempts to genocide" them.

We must ensure that people who are chosen to be judges realize that victims are often criminals, and that they are aware of the tricks that victims used to make themselves look innocent. For example, a judge should be able to understand that this old joke is a trick to make us believe that Jews are unfairly accused of crimes:

When someone is accused of a crime, the courts are required to pass judgment on the person's intelligence and personality by analyzing his history, which includes his behavior in school, jobs, and social and recreational activities.

The people who have demonstrated above-average intelligence should be able to interpret and follow laws better than an idiot, and so the courts must to be more strict with them. The courts should not let them get away with faking ignorance or stupidity. An intelligent person, for example, should not be able to get away with claiming that he thought a "no swimming" sign allowed him to "wade" in the water.

Intelligent criminals are more dangerous than stupid criminals. It is easy to understand this concept when the difference between two creatures is tremendous, such as the difference between a human and a dog. A dog has such limited intelligence that it is not capable of inflicting much damage on society. A dog can bite, bark, and tear objects into pieces, but a human can commit thousands of complex crimes, such as arson, poisonings, and kidnappings. Furthermore, a human can deceive and manipulate people much better than a dog.

The more intelligent a person is, the more complex of a crime he is capable of devising, and the more successful he will be in confusing investigators and getting away with the crime. Intelligent people can commit crimes that stupid people cannot do or understand, such as pyramid schemes, or flying drones that release bacteria near somebody in order to make him sick.

The diversity document explained that there will always be emotional, physical, and intellectual differences between us, but we must keep the differences between us within a certain range in order to create a pleasant society. This section of this document points out another problem with mental diversity. Specifically, as the gap between the most stupid and most intelligent people increases, the intelligent criminals have an easier time outsmarting the majority of people.

The intellectual differences between the people today is already so extreme that most people cannot understand the evidence that there is a pedophile network operating within the government.

Some people have even posted videos in which they claim to be a victim of the pedophile network, and they identified some of the people involved with it, but the majority of people have been fooled into ignoring or ridiculing the "pizzagate conspiracy theory". They even ridicule their military leaders who expose corruption, such as Lt. Gen Flynn, who posted a message from Liz Crokin in Dec 2023 about the photos (one of them is below, left) that were for sale for thousands of dollars.

The police should investigate suspicious behavior, such as $4000 photos of children eating pizza with one eye closed.		Most people are so easily manipulated by criminals that they could be described as "puppets" of criminals.

When General Flynn's son promoted the accusation that a pedophile network was operating in the government, General Flynn was fired from his job as an aide to President Trump. Instead of spreading information about the pedophile network, the public was fooled into believing that General Flynn was a crazy, conspiracy theorist.

In December 2023, Archbishop Viganò also promoted the accusation that there was a pedophile network in the government,  and he accused Epstein of blackmailing people for "participating in heinous ritual crimes against minors". He mentioned those issues in this video for an online conference (an excerpt is here, and the text is here). However, as with General Flynn, the journalists and the public ignored or ridiculed him.

The majority of people do not have the ability to make an intelligent decision about whether a particular piece of information is "evidence" of a pedophile network, or a "stupid conspiracy theory".

Also, most people cannot make intelligent decisions about who to trust. For example, is General Flynn or Liz Crokin truly trying to expose a crime network? Or are they pied pipers or wolves in sheep's clothing who are secretly trying to protect the network? Or are they working with a rival crime network that is fighting for control of us?

The majority of people are so selfish, apathetic, resistant to thinking for themselves, and/or emotionally unable to deal with the problems of a modern society, that they are regularly manipulated by intelligent criminals.

For example, most people have been fooled into believing that our enemy is the military-industrial establishment, the "super rich", the corporations, the Russians, or the Chinese, and that the Jews are our best friends.

The intelligent criminals have also fooled most people, including most police officers, into believing that the government should not be allowed to create a DNA database that has every citizen's DNA because our DNA is "personal" and "private" data.

The intelligent criminals are more dangerous to society than the stupid criminals. The only way we can protect a society from intelligent criminals is to reduce the mental diversity between the people so that a larger percentage of the population is capable of understanding the crimes; can make better decisions about who to trust; and have a greater desire to expose and stop the crimes.

We must reduce the gap between the stupid and intelligent people, and reduce the number of apathetic, mentally ill, and destructive people. This can be accomplished only by restricting reproduction.

To further reduce the problem of intelligent criminals, the Courts Ministry is required to put more effort into identifying and removing the intelligent criminals than the stupid criminals. In all nations today, the opposite is happening. The stupid people who commit "simple" crimes, such as selling drugs, shoplifting, and burglary, are often treated more harshly than the people who are involved with complex crimes, such as extortion, pyramid schemes, blackmail, human trafficking, and propaganda about the Holocaust and the Apollo moon landing.

The U.S. Constitution supports the concept of a "statue of limitations", which makes it difficult to prosecute pedophiles because their victims are children, who are not likely to file a complaint with the police until they are much older, often decades after the crime was committed.

The concept of a statue of limitation was useful for our ancestors because their trials did not have "evidence". There were no security videos, fingerprint analyses, DNA analyses, email messages, or autopsies. Furthermore, most people were illiterate.

The early trials were essentially two or more people arguing about each other's past behavior, and they and the witnesses depended entirely upon their memory for information. Since our memories fade over time, and they can also become distorted, it made sense for them to disregard crimes that were many years old.

Today, however, the situation is significantly different. Our modern technology allows us to collect photographs, video, and other evidence of crimes that we can preserve for centuries, and which will remain 100% accurate. It is foolish for us to mimic the legal systems of our technically primitive ancestors.

This Constitution does not support the concept of a statue of limitations. Instead, the courts will make a decision about whether the evidence of a crime is valid, and if there is enough evidence to justify a trial.

A law is just a sequence of words to represent a concept in our mind, and there is no way we can create a sequence that everybody will interpret exactly the same.

Furthermore, people can misinterpret laws as a result of changes in technology and culture. The arguments over the meaning of the second amendment is an example of that particular problem.

It is idiotic for people to argue over the meaning of the words in a law. This Constitution requires people to understand and follow the purpose of a law, and to be aware that the words in the law may be inaccurate. This will prevent people from violating laws by faking ignorance or stupidity. An example are the people who disregard a "no swimming" sign by claiming that they were "wading" in the water. This behavior is sometimes referred to as "a cat and mouse game", or "exploiting a loophole".

Another example are the two men who destroyed some ancient rock formations in 2024 at the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. A lawyer for one of the men justified their vandalism by pointing out:

If somebody were to punch that lawyer in the face, would he be able to justify it by saying there were no signs posted prohibiting the punching of lawyers in the face?

The US legal system tries to prevent people from exploiting loopholes by trying to provide laws with enough detail to prohibit every possible variation of a crime, but it is impossible for a law to deal every possible situation.

For example, we have laws against slander, but the laws cannot list every possible slanderous word. No matter how many words are regarded as slanderous, people will find other words to use as slander.

Therefore, it is more sensible to create a law that prohibits slander, and which lists only a few slanderous words as examples, and require people to have the intelligence necessary to understand the purpose of the law.

With that policy, a person cannot get away with accusing somebody of "having white privilege" by claiming that there is no law against accusing somebody of having white privilege. If a person is truly too stupid to understand the laws, then he should be evicted, or put on restrictions as if he were a child.

In the USA, the people who are unable to understand or follow laws, such as people who are incredibly stupid or mentally ill, are given pity and special treatment. However, no business or military give special treatment to such people. Instead, they either evict them, or they put them on some type of restrictions.

When we give pity to the stupid and mentally ill, we allow selfish and abusive people to fake stupidity or mental illness in order to get away with some selfish act, such as pretending that they did not realize the "No Swimming" sign was also prohibiting "wading".

A law is a "guideline" that people must interpret and figure out how to apply to their particular life. If a person does not have the ability to understand and follow the laws of an organization, he should be considered as unfit for that particular organization, and he should be evicted, or put on restrictions. We are not obligated to tolerate or pity the people who cannot fit into the team. The Courts Ministry must evict those people.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not have or need laws, but when they settled into agricultural villages, their social environment became so much more complex that they needed laws to guide their behavior. They needed laws to restrict where they could build a house, where they could put farm animals, and where they could dispose of waste products.

A modern society is more complex than the first agricultural villages, so we need even more laws, which in turn means that people today need an even better ability and willingness to understand and follow laws.

Although we use our intelligence when designing certain laws, such as traffic laws for automobiles and airplanes, we are still designing other laws to appease our emotional cravings. An example are the laws that regulate nudity, sex, childbirth, and breast-feeding. We have strong inhibitions about those issues, and that has resulted in people creating laws to appease their inhibitions rather than according to what makes the most intellectual sense. The result is laws that make us feel good, but which are not necessarily beneficial.

An example of this concept is described here. Specifically, our laws against sex related information is causing children to be ignorant about sexual issues, and causing boys to develop obnoxious fascinations for sex, vaginas, and breasts.

Another example of how we are designing laws to appease our emotions is the attitude that "the punishment should fit the crime". We want to punish people because we are monkeys, not because it makes intellectual sense. And the more angry we become at a person, the more severe we want the punishment to be.

The concept that "the punishment should fit the crime" is more accurately described as:

Our punishments for crimes are a collection of monkey reactions. While biting and kicking works for monkeys, and it may have been effective for prehistoric people, it is detrimental for modern humans. Therefore, this Constitution forbids punishing people.

When we design laws according to emotions, we will forbid activities that stimulate unpleasant emotional feeling, such as public nudity, while doing almost nothing to stop crimes that don't have much of an effect on our emotions. For example, when a credit card company or PayPal takes a percentage of a transaction rather than a fee that is set according to the amount of work that they have done, it should be described as a type of abuse, deception, or exploitation. It should be considered as a crime. However, that type of crime does not stimulate our emotions, so most people are not bothered by it. That type of crime is too intellectually complicated for most people to understand, so they are not bothered by it.

Jerry Seinfeld is still getting about $60 million a year in royalties, which could be described as "exploiting" $60 million a year from people, but most people do not regard that as a crime, either. However, there is no difference between medieval peasants providing enormous amounts of wealth to a king or queen, and the modern Americans providing enormous amounts of wealth to Jerry Seinfeld and other billionaires.

Prehistoric people were familiar with the site of a mother breast-feeding her baby, but most people today have never seen such an event. Therefore, when we see a woman doing that, our fear of the unusual is triggered, and our inhibitions about sexual issues are triggered, and those emotions causes us to feel uncomfortable.

We do not like having unpleasant emotion stimulated, so we become angry at the woman for upsetting us. We regard ourselves as innocent victims of a badly behaved woman. Our natural reaction to people who irritate us is to react like a monkey; specifically, glare at, hit, slap, or yell at the person. Some people have called the police to stop a woman from breast-feeding her baby in public.

Babies have a tendency to spit and vomit, so there are valid reasons to restrict breast-feeding to certain areas. Likewise, the human body is constantly creating oils, perspiration, and dead skin, and our crotch is especially filthy, so it makes sense to prohibit nudity in most public areas.

Although there are sensible reasons for laws to regulate nudity, sex, childbirth, masturbation, and breast-feeding, no society is making any attempt to devise intelligent laws for these issues. Rather, we are creating laws to appease our stupid emotional feelings.

The ministers are responsible for designing laws, and the ministers are restricted to people who have shown an above-average level of self-control, and an understanding that humans are apes. They cannot design laws to make people feel good. They must design laws that will create the most pleasant and productive society.

Their goal is to create a life for us that we enjoy reminiscing about when we are older, but that will often require us to "suffer" an unpleasant emotional feeling.

Everybody today should realize that our unpleasant emotions developed for a prehistoric, nomadic life, and that we must often ignore our unpleasant feelings rather than demand that we be able to avoid experiencing them. It is no longer sensible for us to follow the Marquis de Sade philosophy of doing only what feels good and avoiding anything unpleasant.