There is an alarming, disturbing, and growing trend of what I'll call "worship of authority" by many well meaning people today on both the left and the right. The worship of police and military by the socially conservative right is reactionary against leftist anti-war protestors and those deemed "subversive" to traditional values. Leftists, on the other hand, are currently propping up state bureaucrats, officials, politicians, and friendly academics as "authorities" and vanguards of what ought to be proper thought. What amazes me about both sides is that they seem oblivious to the fact that both facets of authority worship work in tandem to destroy or erode our natural, Constitutional rights. After all, the police and military are simply the violent enforcement arm of those who make the laws.
In terms of a "just law" I mean any law that doesn't run contrary to our natural or Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. I would invite you to also read the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution for a quick review. Here is a quick list though:
1) Religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, redress of grievances against the State
2) Keep and bear arms, organize into militias to protect the people from tyranny
3) Protection against quartering soldiers
4) Security of persons, property, papers, and effects against unlawful search and seizure except by a court-issued warrant based on probable cause
5) Right to a jury trial, protection against double jeopardy, protection against seizure of property except by eminent domain with just compensation
6) Right to a fair and speedy trial and to face one's accusor
7) Right to have common law courts review common law suits
8) Protection against cruel and unusual punishment as well as excessive bail
9) Statement that the rights listen in the Constitution are not the only rights guaranteed to the people by the natural law
10) Statement that the rights not expressly delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States as well as the PEOPLE.
To summarize what I have laid out so far is that people have many rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution as well as rights that exist outside of it (see amendments nine and ten.) Laws that run contrary to this fact are inherently unjust and ought to be overturned either implicitly or explicitly. By implicitly, I mean that citizens should ignore and nullify unjust laws that run contrary to their rights. By explicitly, I mean that these laws should also be overturned by courts and legislators. Agents or law enforcement officers that prosecute individuals under unjust laws and not acting in accordance to their sworn oath to obey and uphold the US Constitution.
As sovereign citizens of the US, should not simply obey or accept laws because they are administered or enforced by people with guns and badges or any other ridiculous costume. Second, we shouldn't obey laws because they were written by elected "officials" or thought up by intellectuals. Laws ought to be followed based on whether or not they are just and laws aren't de facto considered just simply because they came about in a democratic system. Keep in mind that democracy can also be a form of tyranny, that is why there are so many Constitutional provisions to separate and limit government power and to protect minority interests.
So why is any of this important? Because at the end of the day, all laws are based on the threat of the use of violent force or the actual initiation of force. You might think it is personally disrespectful for someone to burn an American flag or utter an obscene word, but can you justify using violence to stop that person? Forget having a police officer do it for you, would you, as an individual, tackle someone to the ground, hold them down, pull their hands behind their back, and handcuff them for such behavior? If you answered "no", then how can you morally justify the use of this violence when conducted by a person wearing a badge? Contrast this to a scenario in which murder, theft, rape, etc. was involved. These are examples in which is it morally acceptable to use the threat or use of violence to stop an individual from physically harming another. From now on let's focus on the respect of the natural law and of the Constitution and less on respect for authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment