The End of Government
The Era of Lawlessness
The Nature of Government
Before I go on to explain what has happened to our government and why it is so broken, I would first like to provide the framework of logic that guides how I see government and why it is so important. This will also help us in determining which actions are justified to solve our problems (and which are not).
The Ubiquity of Violence:
I don’t know what the best social policy is, but it seems to me that whatever we choose, it should be one clear standard that applies to everybody equally. Unfortunately, when it comes to threatening people, I have observed a double-standard.
Most people are not pacifists. As young children most of us are spanked or otherwise punished for doing wrong. We are told that the threat of punishment incentivizes good behavior and disincentivizes bad behavior. Parents are told that this is the only way to build discipline and teach right and wrong. Most people have no problem with this, yet threatening other kids (or adults) for mistreating us is frowned upon and can even be considered a crime.
When we get older, we are told that if we are caught breaking the law, the police will put us in jail. The threat of punishment by the state is justified as a way to deter potential criminals. Most people are perfectly happy to support the police and give them the tools they need to bring down organized crime, street gangs, and lone thugs, yet when the police themselves engage in criminal behavior and terrorize the innocent, pointing guns at people who they know have done nothing, pointing guns back at them in surprise and fear somehow becomes a crime.
We are also told that the nation maintains a military in order to deter other nations from attacking us. Threatening other countries with our missiles is justified as a way to deter invaders. People cheer when our foreign enemies are killed. People openly debate whether we should go to war with other countries without fear of being overheard, yet are reticent to discuss overthrowing our own government, which by virtue of proximity will always be the bigger threat.
If we ever study the history of the United States, we are also told that the citizens have the right to bear arms largely as deterrence to wannabe-tyrants and common criminals (hunting and target shooting are just bonuses). We are told we have a legal right of self-defense if we are attacked, yet when we and our fellow citizens are repeatedly harassed, robbed, defrauded, imprisoned, injured, and even killed by our own government, we are told we have no recourse except to use the rigged government courts (and sometimes not even that is allowed). Those that demand change or promise violent retaliation are vilified by all as terrorists.
Ever since I was a small child, I was told that in a democracy the people are ultimately sovereign and our elected officials work for us. We are all kings and queens. I was told we the people made the decisions and were free to discuss the issues – including what actions we wanted to be made legal or illegal and what punishments were appropriate for those who wouldn’t or couldn’t follow the law. People are perfectly happy to openly support policies to execute child rapists and to charge huge fines on those who smoke indoors. I was taught that our country would not even exist had our ancestors not declared the right and duty to abolish tyrannical governments and that revolution is always an option. Yet, when I suggest that politicians who violate the constitution maybe should be tried for treason, I am told I shouldn’t talk like that.
Violence is on everyone’s lips. A father attacks the one who molested his daughter right in the courtroom and is dragged away. He is not held in contempt. (1) Countless people show sympathy and support his actions. Osama Bin Laden is killed and people cheer. I agreed he could not be allowed to live, but thought cheering was in bad taste. Black Lives Matter activists block streets and people laugh when they get run over. Gun-rights enthusiasts revel in fantasies of what they will do if someone ever breaks into their home. Partisans seethe with hatred for politicians in the other party. Over and over I argue for peace. Then, when I finally suggest that peaceful options are running out and war might be coming, everybody turns on me and calls me the hothead.
I get so many mixed signals from society. People celebrate those who break the law, such as Rosa Parks, and even those who do violence against the established authority, such as George Washington, yet they are quick to insist that I must always follow every law that exists today. Balderdash! Poppycock! Horsefeathers!
Violence is bad, but sometimes those doing the violence will stop if promised violence in return. In other words, threats are good. Threats are what keep the peace and hold society together. This was the idea behind the “mutually assured destruction” of the cold war. Sometimes the only alternative is to actually fight. While it is probably true that with some people it is better to make them feel safe and threatening them will only cause them to attack you pre-emptively, this doesn’t really work if they have already begun their attacks.
The unfortunate truth is that if you live under a government that would charge you with criminal threatening for speaking your mind, you have a government that needs to be threatened. If you live under a government that would threaten to hurt you or your family in order to keep you quiet, you have a government that is worth sacrificing yourself and your family to expose. If you live under a government that would send agents into your group to radicalize its members and entrap people into attacking that same government, you have a government that you should attack.
We live in a society that blames the victim. When religious extremists use actual violence to exterminate unbelievers, inciting other unbelievers into desecrating copies of their religious symbols in protest, we then blame the desecrators for inciting violence. (2) When government uses actual violence to endanger life, liberty, and property, inciting crowds of people to angrily shout at them in protest, we then blame the protestors for inciting violence. (3)
Another observation I have made is of activist groups blackmailing, suing, slandering, and boycotting their opponents, as well as making actual threats of physical violence, yet when someone makes a joke at their expense, they play the victim and claim they are the ones being threatened. Some activists have been known to see threats everywhere and in everything. They then tell everyone their opponents have threatened them and must be violent people. One of the most common ways to bully someone is to accuse them of being the bully.
Talk about crime and get labeled a racist. Talk about encouraging traditional marriage and get labeled a homophobe. Talk about prudent science and get accused of denying science. Talk about fiscal sanity and get accused of wanting to push granny off a cliff. It seems like every time I speak against violence, I get accused of fomenting violence and told I have to watch what I say because somebody somewhere might take it as a threat. I am surrounded by paranoiacs, but I refuse to live in constant fear!
To avoid violence, people must be able to freely speak! People need to vent or else their anger will grow to the point that it controls them instead of the other way around. This is the time we must be more open with our opinions, not less.
The Right Use of Force:
When is violence justified? When is violence not justified? People use violence as a means to prevent behaviors that interfere with their lives, but we all interfere with each other just by existing. As material objects, we take up space in checkout lines and in traffic. We have to live somewhere and our homes can block scenic views. Our bodies produce gravity and heat. In order to live we must consume food and oxygen – and the waste has to go somewhere. Where does one draw the line?
As I see it, there are many tough issues on which it is unclear what side of the violence justification line they fall on, but many more of them are clearly on one side or the other. I cannot understand how anyone can disagree. If you keep lobbing buckets of burning pitch at your neighbor’s house, it is perfectly moral for him to stop you by whatever means necessary. On the other hand, he does not have the moral right to break into your house during dinner and punish you for holding your fork in your left hand. The action does not affect him in any meaningful way; he would not even know you were doing it if he were not spying on you.
Suppose though, that two of your neighbors join together to enforce their ideas of table etiquette on you. Does this change the fundamental morality of the action in any way? Suppose there are three of them. Is there some magical number that makes it okay? Suppose there is a poll and 51% of your neighbors vote that forks should only be held in the right hand. Is it any of their business? Is the majority always right?
Now suppose that these same neighbors form a gang, arm themselves with weapons, and start calling themselves “the government.” They call their fork-use ideals “the law.” Does the underlying morality of the situation change yet? What is so special about the combination of sounds in the word “government” or “law” that justifies violence? Does it make any difference if they call themselves “the cabbage” and enforce “the slaw” instead?
All that any government in history has ever been is a collection of people willing to use violence to enforce their ideals. This is the best definition of government, since any government that fails to do these things will soon be replaced by one that does. A government with no police or military will not last long. While the proscribed punishments for breaking the rules might be non-violent, this is only the case when the “criminals” cooperate, becoming willing partners in their own injury. Should they ignore the order to pay the fine or step into prison, the state will use force.
Right and wrong obviously exist independently of the law. To say that the formal utterances of those we call legislators determines morality is to say that might makes right and it is therefore perfectly permissible for your neighbor to attack you at dinner so long as he is bigger than you. To say that this only applies if you and your neighbor live in an anarchy with no law against assault only begs the question of how far up the power structure you want to consider. What is anarchy? People are under the dominion of municipalities, which are under the dominion of states, which are under the dominion of the nation, but all nations exist within a global anarchy with no one over them. Therefore, in some sense, we already live in an anarchy.
If your neighbor can be overruled by a power that claims dominion over him, then logically, that power can be overruled by an even larger power that claims dominion over it. Because competing claims of dominion exist even in the absence of actual war (Islamists preach that the whole world must be brought into submission to Allah), and because there is no way to really tell who has the most might without a contest (Who ever thought that tiny Vietnam could successfully repel American forces?), there is ultimately no way to resolve these questions. Therefore, might cannot make right.
With the true nature of government now clear, we can see that it is literally a criminal enterprise. They steal from us through taxes and they kill some of us through execution. This does not mean that I support anarchy or am in a hurry to tear down civilization as we know it. Governments do a lot of good. They keep us safe from even worse rival governments and they protect us from lesser criminals. We need some government. Though far from perfect, government is almost always a good ally to have. Just as the Americans lent war materials to the Soviets to fight the Nazis during the second world war, I pay my taxes so the FBI can go after terrorists, scammers, and the Mafia. That doesn’t mean the FBI is perfect. It means the reasons to support government are practical, not moral.
It is at this point that I start to run into disagreement. People tell me that those in office are special and have some sort of rights the rest of us do not. They say that while we are not allowed to steal from our neighbor, the government may tax him. They say that while we are not allowed to kidnap our neighbor and lock him in our basement, the government may imprison him. However, this cannot be. I consider it self-evident that all men are created equal. In any case, equality is the default position; the burden of proof is on those claiming otherwise and no one has yet provided any proof.
Others tell me that God himself puts officers in power and so we must always obey (see 1st Peter 2:13&18, Romans 13:1&2, and Titus 3:1). This is called the divine right of kings, which was exactly the issue we fought the revolutionary war over. I thought this issue was settled long before I was born, but then again some people still think the world is flat too. Apparently, nothing is ever settled.
The question I often have when confronted with the above verses is: Which king do I submit to? In places like Afghanistan and Sudan, where internal wars have lasted for decades, which government is legitimate? Are all those obeying the wrong side doing wrong? Of course, for practical reasons one must at some point accept the new government once it has established itself – but how soon is too soon? How late is too late? If the boundaries between powers remain more or less stable for years, does this mean they are actually two separate countries? Who decides? North Korea and South Korea are still technically at war over control of the entire peninsula. China and Taiwan both claim to be the rightful authority. Pakistan and India have periodic wars that shift their boundaries every couple decades or so.
When I make these arguments, people tell me that I still have to obey the law in the United States because there is no civil war here. There isn’t? What if I proclaim myself king over all America and declare war on the pretend government in Washington DC? Since wars do not necessarily mean that there is someone shooting every second of the day, I need not actually attack anybody. Logically, this gives me as much claim to authority as them.
I am told that my proclaiming to be king does not make me king, since no one else accepts me as king. Well, what is the magic number of subjects I need? One? Two? Fifty thousand? What defines a subject? If I claim you as my subject, are you? Who decides? Must subjects necessarily be willing? There are plenty of people in the US that do not really accept the government; they simply have no alternative government to accept (not having met me yet) and only follow the laws out of fear of punishment (and only if they think the police are watching). Others accept an authority only because they believe that everyone else has accepted the authority – but usually everyone else only accepted the authority for the same reason! Authority is a house of cards precariously balanced against itself. It has no substance!
According to the theological thinkers, it was wrong for George Washington to expel the British and the United States is a “pretend” government – yet at the same time they tell me that it would be wrong for me to expel the “legitimate” American government because I am a pretend government. You can’t have it both ways! If the current American government was appointed by God, then so was the British Empire. If the American revolutionary army was able to become the next God-appointed government, then so can me and my army. How can it be wrong to overthrow a government if you are going to replace it with a new government that will also be wrong to overthrow?
Going even further, some of these people say that good Christians must always submit to the military draft and follow orders to invade other countries. They forget that those other countries’ governments were just as much appointed by God as our own! How can it be okay to overthrow the governments of Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, but not that of the United States? Is morality relative to your address? What if you are homeless?
It should be clear by now that government officials have no special rights that we do not. So does that mean that we the people can execute murderers, confiscate evidence, collect taxes, and lock people up? YES! It’s just that it’s a very bad idea to do it yourself. Most people are not good at weighing evidence and have no way of convincing the surrounding community that they were in the right. Vigilantism leads to counter-vigilantism. We have the moral right to defend ourselves, but this is usually impractical and very risky. That’s why governments were created – to do justice on our behalf, but they only have the authority to use violence because we have the authority to use violence. Their just power derives from the consent of the governed. They work for us!
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – excerpt from The Declaration of Independence
So, government has the right to use violence only when an individual would also have the right to use violence. When is that? This is of course a very complex issue that philosophers have debated for the entirety of human history and I am only one person. To fully explain the principles involved would take several volumes and more arrogance than is healthy. However, I believe I can give a rough outline:
Some situations practically demand violent action. Murderers, rapists, assaulters, vandals, and thieves must be stopped. If they will not submit willingly, they must be stopped by force. I consider this indisputable.
Other situations are messy with no good solutions. Abortion can be considered a form of murder, but expecting a mother to carry through an unwanted pregnancy (especially if she was raped) can be considered the worst form of slavery imaginable. Drug use can be considered a personal choice that directly affects no one else, but drug users do tend to become burdensome and they ultimately hurt themselves. Dependency on dealers could be considered a form of slavery, but enforcing prohibition laws is almost always a disaster. These are very tough issues that smart people can disagree on. Personally, I err on the side of liberty when it comes to drug use and the side of life when it comes to abortion, but I know I could very well be wrong.
Then there are situations that should never be an excuse for violent action. They are personal choices unfit for state regulation. No government should ever tell its citizens not to collect rainwater on their own property, or not to grow grain for their own personal use during a time of low grain prices, or to make sure to keep the lawn trimmed below a certain height, or to not engage in “gay sex” in private. I consider this indisputable. There is no point in discussing it because I know you know I’m right.
The Rights of Individuals:
Groups have always scared me. While it is true that there is safety in numbers and value in the division of labor that comes with economic partnerships, in groups one is always under constant pressure to compromise one’s principles to serve the interests of others. Groups allow for the rise of power hierarchies and groupthink.
I am disgusted and creeped out by conformity. From the youngest of ages, I have always felt a deep, insatiable need to be unique. This has sometimes cost me socially, but I would rather be a loner than a member of the faceless masses blending into the background and controlled by the bullies at the top. Even though I love the country, taking the pledge of allegiance with all the other kids in class always made me feel like I was in a cult. A country worthy of allegiance would not require empty rituals imposed on children. A country that does is not worthy.
What really bugs me is the idea of communal will. There is no such thing. Communities are nothing but collections of individuals. They are unimportant illusions. Only individuals can think. Only individuals can feel joy. Only individuals can feel pain. Only individuals can have hopes and dreams. Only individuals can feel disappointment when those hopes and dreams are crushed. Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Communities only do what their constituent individuals tell them to do.
These modes of thought are especially dangerous when applied to divide us into different tribes based on race, religion, age, sex, or sexual orientation. Identity politics isn’t just bad policy; it’s a threat to my mental health. I simply cannot live in such a hostile environment for long. It is literally torture for me to be expected to interact with someone not as an individual, but as a representative of everything that is right and wrong with whatever group(s) I (or they) consider themselves to belong to. It is literally torture to have every interaction with others processed through a lense where I am simply considered to be one of “them.” I am an individual, and so is everyone else. Race is a nebulous, poorly-defined means of categorization unimportant to most daily activities. Yet, I am told that some groups are dominant and others are disadvantaged and to correct this we must make use of subsidies, reparations, affirmative action, or other government policies that help one group at the expense of others.
Even if I were to concede that it was appropriate to treat individuals as members of groups, we would still need to agree which groups they belong to. How are we to classify a person who is half Hawaiian and half Cuban? How are we to classify a person who has two Irish grandmothers, a Nigerian grandfather, and an Indian grandfather? How mixed can someone be until they are considered a different race? If you go back far enough, we are all mixed.
Are all whites one race? Those in the former Yugoslavia might disagree. Are Jews white? Those in Nazi Germany didn’t think so. Are all blacks one race? Africa is the most genetically and linguistically diverse continent, yet there are those in the United States that argue that “black” should be capitalized because it refers to a single ethnicity. (4) What this boils down to is that there is no non-arbitrary way to decide which group is “dominant” and which group is “disadvantaged.” The same individual might be told they are part of the white majority one day and then told they are part of the Sicilian minority the next. Since we all have unique DNA (excluding monozygotic siblings) and addresses, it could be said that every individual on the planet is a member of a racial minority of one.
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual.” – Ayn Rand
“Everyone is special. Everyone in his or her own way.” – Barney The Dinosaur
Dividing us by religion runs into the same problem. Are Northern Baptists really that different from Southern Baptists? Are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses really Christians? Are Catholics and Protestants the same religion? Are Muslims, Jews, and Christians actually part of a single Abrahamic religion? Where do you draw the lines?
Who defines what is and isn’t a religion? Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? Is atheism a religion? Is agnosticism a religion? When one has a sincerely-held belief, what defines whether the belief is religious or not? How can we grant exemptions to military service or vaccine mandates on religious grounds other than to simply let anyone declare anything?
A central tenet of my religion is that religion has nothing to do with belonging to a group or submitting myself to the teachings of any priest, prophet, or book. Another tenet is that of lifelong learning. Because I am always learning new things, I change my mind. Another tenet is to not hold all beliefs with unwarranted certainty. How strong do my beliefs have to be to cross the threshold that they qualify me for an exemption? Who decides?
Besides, why are race and religion so important anyways? If we are going to group people by their observable characteristics, why not height, handedness, age, or Body Mass Index instead? It all seems so arbitrary.
That the rights of individuals exist I consider as obvious as the existence of gravity or air. I have always felt it. More importantly, I know you have too. It’s not up for debate. Communities do not have rights. There is no such thing as Asian rights or Christian rights. There are only the same human rights we all have. Identity politics drives incivility and destroys friendships.
It was always personal to me…
I accept that I will not always get my way. I accept that taxes and safety regulations will cause products I buy to be more expensive than I would like, but this is a diffuse cost able to be mitigated by other factors (like being able to get a better job). What I have trouble accepting is when the government encroaches on my personal life. This is oppressive. This is tyranny. To be sure, the United States is far less oppressive than Saudi Arabia or North Korea, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t still oppressed.
I have thought for years of taking a road trip around the country but haven’t had the money. On the shorter trips I have previously taken, lodging has often been a problem. The price of campgrounds has gone up, they expect you to register earlier in the day than I know where I’m going to be, and on weekends they are always full. I am perfectly content to sleep in my car on the side of the road or in an out-of-the-way parking lot, but in many places around the country the police have been known to wake people up and chase them away for loitering. The police would actually prefer it if I fell asleep at the wheel. Do police give up their consciences when they join the force? This is evil!
Add to this all the prohibitions against unlicensed fishing, alcohol on the beach, firearms in certain parks, and requirements of car registration, inspections, driver’s licenses, and car insurance and I feel very oppressed. Granted, each of these things taken alone might have some good reasons behind them, but taken together it is too much to expect anyone to bear. People tell me to let some things go and choose my battles, but no one ever tells the government to let some things go and choose its battles. They only take more and more! I don’t try to control them; why do they feel so strongly that they must control me? Do I have an unhealthy obsession with freedom or do they have an unhealthy obsession with control? If there is anyone here with an unhealthy obsession, it is them. Enough is enough!
I always wear my seatbelt, not only for safety reasons, but because it keeps me in place and I like the feel. I want to wear my seatbelt. However, that any state government would dare to command me to do so on threat of punishment makes me want to cut it off and stuff it down their throats. They are supposed to work for me to protect me from others, not from myself. In a democracy, we are all monarchs. I AM THE SOVERIEGN! If people can’t be trusted to make their own personal decisions, how can they be trusted to vote to make decisions for the whole country? Is this a democracy or not?
One time in Florida my parents took me to a beach and then to a restaurant. Unknown to me, county ordinance had banned straws along the beach. I would no sooner expect to be given soda without a straw than soda without a cup. It was bad customer service. If I had known, I would have ordered my soda without ice so I would not have to drink it with the cubes bumping my face and the soda dribbling around them and down my chin. I couldn’t get them to fix it.
One of the things I like about Star Trek is the vision it has of what humanity could be. If only we put aside our squabbling, we could build starships, eliminate poverty, and invent technology that makes our lives easier – never perfect, but constantly approaching perfection. However, if I can’t even enjoy my beverage with a straw, we are going backwards. Florida is basically a third-world country.
Perhaps I’m being overly sensitive. It’s possible. People are sensitive to different things. Those with autism are often highly sensitive to sound. Those with photophobia are sensitive to light. Some people are allergic to peanuts. However, while no one would suggest that we rub peanut butter into the faces of those who are allergic, people do endorse forcing government tyranny on those who object to it. This needs to stop.
When is war justified?
Wars carry immense risks. Even for the winners, costs are high. When is war justified? The Declaration of Independence gives some useful guidelines. It states that such desperate acts should not be taken for “light and transient causes,” but that it becomes the right and duty of every citizen when a long train of events “evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism.”
An example of a light and transient cause would be the 2008 bank bailouts. It cost taxpayers money and propped up financially unhealthy institutions at the expense of the rest of the economy. However, the burden was light and the policy was temporary and only in response to a specific temporary threat. It was a wrong policy, but certainly not something worth overthrowing the government over.
On the other hand, when government takes a portion of your paycheck before you even see it and makes you apply to get it back (5), when police run checkpoints to look for illegal immigrants or drunk drivers (6), when the IRS can simply snatch all your money and make you prove your innocence to get it back (7), when the government backs the majority of mortgages (8), when banks are threatened into not doing business with certain types of people (9), when the NSA listens to your phone calls and reads your emails (10), when they begin to regulate salt (11), sugar (12), and plastic straws (13) in restaurants, when they won’t let you sleep in your car (14), when they won’t let you use a phone while driving (15), and when they expect you to get a license to fish (16), shovel snow (17), or open a lemonade stand (18), and all these things run on and on, it begins to feel like the walls are closing in. When laws are passed to make it harder to run for office (19), hold protests (20), or to buy guns or ammunition (21), it starts to look like the elites want the rest of us defenseless so they can continue to grow their tyranny unopposed.
In Vietnam, the way they capture pigs is to lure them in bit by bit. Food is left in the same location day after day so that they get used to the area and feel comfortable. A wall is built, then a second, and then a third, so that the area is gradually more enclosed. If this is done gradually enough, the pigs do not notice. Finally, a gate is installed, completing the fence. The pigs go through the gate to eat one last time. Then the gate is closed and they never come out.
Do the entirety of all our permanent government programs and regulations “evince a design?” The overwhelmingly obvious answer is YES! Anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool. Such a design need not necessarily be deliberate (though I believe it is), it could merely be the product of an accumulation of bad choices by different people over generations. The important thing is that once the walls are in place, anyone could close that gate.
The only thing still open to debate is how close the walls are to being completed and how firm they are. Do we have the collective strength to push them down? Can we do it without violence? Is the wall-building process reversible? It might or might not be time to panic right this second, but no one can seriously deny the growing danger.
There are people who argue that no system is ever perfect and that injustices will always happen even in the best countries, but that these will be few and far between. What I want them to understand is that I’m not concerned about diffuse costs of policies such as bad air quality or low wages; I’m concerned about the fates of those wrongfully imprisoned, killed, or who have had their businesses taken away. The victims may be few and far between, but this kind of pain is not spread out. As explained earlier, countries do not feel pain; individuals do. A few people hurt in a country of four hundred million might not be the end of the world, but for those individuals their world has ended. For them, it is the end of the world. For them, revolution is worth it. No matter what damage they cause, I have no choice but to hold them innocent. I know what it’s like to have a target on your back. I don’t have the luxury of saying, “It will never happen to me.” So long as even one person is being unfairly treated, the system must be fought. If the system will not yield to reform, it must be destroyed.
I have also encountered people who claim not to understand why people like me hate the government so much. They tell me the government isn’t some foreign entity, but that the government is us. It is the ultimate collective will of every member of the community – our family, friends, and neighbors. It is the highest form of union. They tell me it is always best to work through the government rather than pursue a personal agenda – even an altruistic one – going so far as saying that money should never be given to private charity but that the government should take care of everything. They tell me that we all belong to each other. This attitude I find both incomprehensible and extremely dangerous.
Related to this issue is another: People who are perfectly okay with fighting dictatorial tyranny somehow think it improper or immoral to fight democratic tyranny. Immediately after the American colonists expelled the British, there was a rebellion in Massachusetts led by Daniel Shay over taxation, exploitative lending, and other issues. They had freed themselves from London and now wanted to complete the job by freeing themselves from Boston. Strangely, the same people in the east of the state that had argued that all nations had the right to self-determination refused to allow those in the west to shape their own destiny, arguing that representation in the legislature was enough (22).
Much later, during the civil war, it was actually argued by those in the north of the country that states were not allowed to secede. It was okay to secede from Britain because the king had imposed an arbitrary government and taxation without representation, but states seceding from a democracy were thwarting the will of the people (23).
This is crazy! Since when does the size of the mob breaking down my door dictate when I am allowed to defend myself? Am I allowed to shoot a single rapist, but not a group of ten? What difference does it make to me that my neighbors democratically elected them for this job? Am I any less dead if the bullet that hits me was fired by a soldier or police officer than fired by a robber or jihadist?
Knowing that it is my neighbors making decisions rather than some distant monarch doesn’t make me feel any safer. I know some of my neighbors and I have found that most of them are either incredibly gullible or incredibly stubborn. They are quick to jump to conclusions before the facts are in, quick to condemn others they do not know, and are full of ridiculous prejudices. They might not hurt people themselves but are perfectly happy to elect others to outlaw activities people enjoy. Some of them want to outlaw homeschooling, smoking, gambling, using a cell phone while driving, and even free speech!
Knowing that it is my neighbors making decisions that affect my life doesn’t make me any less upset or less willing to defend myself. It only makes me begin to wonder whether I could legitimately extend my right to defend myself from shooting intruders in my house to shooting people at the polling stations. From the way I hear some people talk, I am sure they want to do the same to me.
It brings me no comfort in the slightest to know that I have as much power over others as they have over me. Interdependence is still dependence. Actually, interdependence is worse than dependence because it means that even more people are dependent! I don’t want to rule anyone else. I only want to be free. I can’t stand being micro-managed. Democracy is dictatorship of the majority and the majority is not always right. Democracy without individual rights doesn’t make us all masters; it makes us all slaves.
Until people begin to accept the obvious and self-evident truths I am laying down, there is nothing to talk about. Political discourse is impossible. There is only war.
The Ubiquity of Violence:
I don’t know what the best social policy is, but it seems to me that whatever we choose, it should be one clear standard that applies to everybody equally. Unfortunately, when it comes to threatening people, I have observed a double-standard.
Most people are not pacifists. As young children most of us are spanked or otherwise punished for doing wrong. We are told that the threat of punishment incentivizes good behavior and disincentivizes bad behavior. Parents are told that this is the only way to build discipline and teach right and wrong. Most people have no problem with this, yet threatening other kids (or adults) for mistreating us is frowned upon and can even be considered a crime.
When we get older, we are told that if we are caught breaking the law, the police will put us in jail. The threat of punishment by the state is justified as a way to deter potential criminals. Most people are perfectly happy to support the police and give them the tools they need to bring down organized crime, street gangs, and lone thugs, yet when the police themselves engage in criminal behavior and terrorize the innocent, pointing guns at people who they know have done nothing, pointing guns back at them in surprise and fear somehow becomes a crime.
We are also told that the nation maintains a military in order to deter other nations from attacking us. Threatening other countries with our missiles is justified as a way to deter invaders. People cheer when our foreign enemies are killed. People openly debate whether we should go to war with other countries without fear of being overheard, yet are reticent to discuss overthrowing our own government, which by virtue of proximity will always be the bigger threat.
If we ever study the history of the United States, we are also told that the citizens have the right to bear arms largely as deterrence to wannabe-tyrants and common criminals (hunting and target shooting are just bonuses). We are told we have a legal right of self-defense if we are attacked, yet when we and our fellow citizens are repeatedly harassed, robbed, defrauded, imprisoned, injured, and even killed by our own government, we are told we have no recourse except to use the rigged government courts (and sometimes not even that is allowed). Those that demand change or promise violent retaliation are vilified by all as terrorists.
Ever since I was a small child, I was told that in a democracy the people are ultimately sovereign and our elected officials work for us. We are all kings and queens. I was told we the people made the decisions and were free to discuss the issues – including what actions we wanted to be made legal or illegal and what punishments were appropriate for those who wouldn’t or couldn’t follow the law. People are perfectly happy to openly support policies to execute child rapists and to charge huge fines on those who smoke indoors. I was taught that our country would not even exist had our ancestors not declared the right and duty to abolish tyrannical governments and that revolution is always an option. Yet, when I suggest that politicians who violate the constitution maybe should be tried for treason, I am told I shouldn’t talk like that.
Violence is on everyone’s lips. A father attacks the one who molested his daughter right in the courtroom and is dragged away. He is not held in contempt. (1) Countless people show sympathy and support his actions. Osama Bin Laden is killed and people cheer. I agreed he could not be allowed to live, but thought cheering was in bad taste. Black Lives Matter activists block streets and people laugh when they get run over. Gun-rights enthusiasts revel in fantasies of what they will do if someone ever breaks into their home. Partisans seethe with hatred for politicians in the other party. Over and over I argue for peace. Then, when I finally suggest that peaceful options are running out and war might be coming, everybody turns on me and calls me the hothead.
I get so many mixed signals from society. People celebrate those who break the law, such as Rosa Parks, and even those who do violence against the established authority, such as George Washington, yet they are quick to insist that I must always follow every law that exists today. Balderdash! Poppycock! Horsefeathers!
Violence is bad, but sometimes those doing the violence will stop if promised violence in return. In other words, threats are good. Threats are what keep the peace and hold society together. This was the idea behind the “mutually assured destruction” of the cold war. Sometimes the only alternative is to actually fight. While it is probably true that with some people it is better to make them feel safe and threatening them will only cause them to attack you pre-emptively, this doesn’t really work if they have already begun their attacks.
The unfortunate truth is that if you live under a government that would charge you with criminal threatening for speaking your mind, you have a government that needs to be threatened. If you live under a government that would threaten to hurt you or your family in order to keep you quiet, you have a government that is worth sacrificing yourself and your family to expose. If you live under a government that would send agents into your group to radicalize its members and entrap people into attacking that same government, you have a government that you should attack.
We live in a society that blames the victim. When religious extremists use actual violence to exterminate unbelievers, inciting other unbelievers into desecrating copies of their religious symbols in protest, we then blame the desecrators for inciting violence. (2) When government uses actual violence to endanger life, liberty, and property, inciting crowds of people to angrily shout at them in protest, we then blame the protestors for inciting violence. (3)
Another observation I have made is of activist groups blackmailing, suing, slandering, and boycotting their opponents, as well as making actual threats of physical violence, yet when someone makes a joke at their expense, they play the victim and claim they are the ones being threatened. Some activists have been known to see threats everywhere and in everything. They then tell everyone their opponents have threatened them and must be violent people. One of the most common ways to bully someone is to accuse them of being the bully.
Talk about crime and get labeled a racist. Talk about encouraging traditional marriage and get labeled a homophobe. Talk about prudent science and get accused of denying science. Talk about fiscal sanity and get accused of wanting to push granny off a cliff. It seems like every time I speak against violence, I get accused of fomenting violence and told I have to watch what I say because somebody somewhere might take it as a threat. I am surrounded by paranoiacs, but I refuse to live in constant fear!
To avoid violence, people must be able to freely speak! People need to vent or else their anger will grow to the point that it controls them instead of the other way around. This is the time we must be more open with our opinions, not less.
The Right Use of Force:
When is violence justified? When is violence not justified? People use violence as a means to prevent behaviors that interfere with their lives, but we all interfere with each other just by existing. As material objects, we take up space in checkout lines and in traffic. We have to live somewhere and our homes can block scenic views. Our bodies produce gravity and heat. In order to live we must consume food and oxygen – and the waste has to go somewhere. Where does one draw the line?
As I see it, there are many tough issues on which it is unclear what side of the violence justification line they fall on, but many more of them are clearly on one side or the other. I cannot understand how anyone can disagree. If you keep lobbing buckets of burning pitch at your neighbor’s house, it is perfectly moral for him to stop you by whatever means necessary. On the other hand, he does not have the moral right to break into your house during dinner and punish you for holding your fork in your left hand. The action does not affect him in any meaningful way; he would not even know you were doing it if he were not spying on you.
Suppose though, that two of your neighbors join together to enforce their ideas of table etiquette on you. Does this change the fundamental morality of the action in any way? Suppose there are three of them. Is there some magical number that makes it okay? Suppose there is a poll and 51% of your neighbors vote that forks should only be held in the right hand. Is it any of their business? Is the majority always right?
Now suppose that these same neighbors form a gang, arm themselves with weapons, and start calling themselves “the government.” They call their fork-use ideals “the law.” Does the underlying morality of the situation change yet? What is so special about the combination of sounds in the word “government” or “law” that justifies violence? Does it make any difference if they call themselves “the cabbage” and enforce “the slaw” instead?
All that any government in history has ever been is a collection of people willing to use violence to enforce their ideals. This is the best definition of government, since any government that fails to do these things will soon be replaced by one that does. A government with no police or military will not last long. While the proscribed punishments for breaking the rules might be non-violent, this is only the case when the “criminals” cooperate, becoming willing partners in their own injury. Should they ignore the order to pay the fine or step into prison, the state will use force.
Right and wrong obviously exist independently of the law. To say that the formal utterances of those we call legislators determines morality is to say that might makes right and it is therefore perfectly permissible for your neighbor to attack you at dinner so long as he is bigger than you. To say that this only applies if you and your neighbor live in an anarchy with no law against assault only begs the question of how far up the power structure you want to consider. What is anarchy? People are under the dominion of municipalities, which are under the dominion of states, which are under the dominion of the nation, but all nations exist within a global anarchy with no one over them. Therefore, in some sense, we already live in an anarchy.
If your neighbor can be overruled by a power that claims dominion over him, then logically, that power can be overruled by an even larger power that claims dominion over it. Because competing claims of dominion exist even in the absence of actual war (Islamists preach that the whole world must be brought into submission to Allah), and because there is no way to really tell who has the most might without a contest (Who ever thought that tiny Vietnam could successfully repel American forces?), there is ultimately no way to resolve these questions. Therefore, might cannot make right.
With the true nature of government now clear, we can see that it is literally a criminal enterprise. They steal from us through taxes and they kill some of us through execution. This does not mean that I support anarchy or am in a hurry to tear down civilization as we know it. Governments do a lot of good. They keep us safe from even worse rival governments and they protect us from lesser criminals. We need some government. Though far from perfect, government is almost always a good ally to have. Just as the Americans lent war materials to the Soviets to fight the Nazis during the second world war, I pay my taxes so the FBI can go after terrorists, scammers, and the Mafia. That doesn’t mean the FBI is perfect. It means the reasons to support government are practical, not moral.
It is at this point that I start to run into disagreement. People tell me that those in office are special and have some sort of rights the rest of us do not. They say that while we are not allowed to steal from our neighbor, the government may tax him. They say that while we are not allowed to kidnap our neighbor and lock him in our basement, the government may imprison him. However, this cannot be. I consider it self-evident that all men are created equal. In any case, equality is the default position; the burden of proof is on those claiming otherwise and no one has yet provided any proof.
Others tell me that God himself puts officers in power and so we must always obey (see 1st Peter 2:13&18, Romans 13:1&2, and Titus 3:1). This is called the divine right of kings, which was exactly the issue we fought the revolutionary war over. I thought this issue was settled long before I was born, but then again some people still think the world is flat too. Apparently, nothing is ever settled.
The question I often have when confronted with the above verses is: Which king do I submit to? In places like Afghanistan and Sudan, where internal wars have lasted for decades, which government is legitimate? Are all those obeying the wrong side doing wrong? Of course, for practical reasons one must at some point accept the new government once it has established itself – but how soon is too soon? How late is too late? If the boundaries between powers remain more or less stable for years, does this mean they are actually two separate countries? Who decides? North Korea and South Korea are still technically at war over control of the entire peninsula. China and Taiwan both claim to be the rightful authority. Pakistan and India have periodic wars that shift their boundaries every couple decades or so.
When I make these arguments, people tell me that I still have to obey the law in the United States because there is no civil war here. There isn’t? What if I proclaim myself king over all America and declare war on the pretend government in Washington DC? Since wars do not necessarily mean that there is someone shooting every second of the day, I need not actually attack anybody. Logically, this gives me as much claim to authority as them.
I am told that my proclaiming to be king does not make me king, since no one else accepts me as king. Well, what is the magic number of subjects I need? One? Two? Fifty thousand? What defines a subject? If I claim you as my subject, are you? Who decides? Must subjects necessarily be willing? There are plenty of people in the US that do not really accept the government; they simply have no alternative government to accept (not having met me yet) and only follow the laws out of fear of punishment (and only if they think the police are watching). Others accept an authority only because they believe that everyone else has accepted the authority – but usually everyone else only accepted the authority for the same reason! Authority is a house of cards precariously balanced against itself. It has no substance!
According to the theological thinkers, it was wrong for George Washington to expel the British and the United States is a “pretend” government – yet at the same time they tell me that it would be wrong for me to expel the “legitimate” American government because I am a pretend government. You can’t have it both ways! If the current American government was appointed by God, then so was the British Empire. If the American revolutionary army was able to become the next God-appointed government, then so can me and my army. How can it be wrong to overthrow a government if you are going to replace it with a new government that will also be wrong to overthrow?
Going even further, some of these people say that good Christians must always submit to the military draft and follow orders to invade other countries. They forget that those other countries’ governments were just as much appointed by God as our own! How can it be okay to overthrow the governments of Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, but not that of the United States? Is morality relative to your address? What if you are homeless?
It should be clear by now that government officials have no special rights that we do not. So does that mean that we the people can execute murderers, confiscate evidence, collect taxes, and lock people up? YES! It’s just that it’s a very bad idea to do it yourself. Most people are not good at weighing evidence and have no way of convincing the surrounding community that they were in the right. Vigilantism leads to counter-vigilantism. We have the moral right to defend ourselves, but this is usually impractical and very risky. That’s why governments were created – to do justice on our behalf, but they only have the authority to use violence because we have the authority to use violence. Their just power derives from the consent of the governed. They work for us!
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – excerpt from The Declaration of Independence
So, government has the right to use violence only when an individual would also have the right to use violence. When is that? This is of course a very complex issue that philosophers have debated for the entirety of human history and I am only one person. To fully explain the principles involved would take several volumes and more arrogance than is healthy. However, I believe I can give a rough outline:
Some situations practically demand violent action. Murderers, rapists, assaulters, vandals, and thieves must be stopped. If they will not submit willingly, they must be stopped by force. I consider this indisputable.
Other situations are messy with no good solutions. Abortion can be considered a form of murder, but expecting a mother to carry through an unwanted pregnancy (especially if she was raped) can be considered the worst form of slavery imaginable. Drug use can be considered a personal choice that directly affects no one else, but drug users do tend to become burdensome and they ultimately hurt themselves. Dependency on dealers could be considered a form of slavery, but enforcing prohibition laws is almost always a disaster. These are very tough issues that smart people can disagree on. Personally, I err on the side of liberty when it comes to drug use and the side of life when it comes to abortion, but I know I could very well be wrong.
Then there are situations that should never be an excuse for violent action. They are personal choices unfit for state regulation. No government should ever tell its citizens not to collect rainwater on their own property, or not to grow grain for their own personal use during a time of low grain prices, or to make sure to keep the lawn trimmed below a certain height, or to not engage in “gay sex” in private. I consider this indisputable. There is no point in discussing it because I know you know I’m right.
The Rights of Individuals:
Groups have always scared me. While it is true that there is safety in numbers and value in the division of labor that comes with economic partnerships, in groups one is always under constant pressure to compromise one’s principles to serve the interests of others. Groups allow for the rise of power hierarchies and groupthink.
I am disgusted and creeped out by conformity. From the youngest of ages, I have always felt a deep, insatiable need to be unique. This has sometimes cost me socially, but I would rather be a loner than a member of the faceless masses blending into the background and controlled by the bullies at the top. Even though I love the country, taking the pledge of allegiance with all the other kids in class always made me feel like I was in a cult. A country worthy of allegiance would not require empty rituals imposed on children. A country that does is not worthy.
What really bugs me is the idea of communal will. There is no such thing. Communities are nothing but collections of individuals. They are unimportant illusions. Only individuals can think. Only individuals can feel joy. Only individuals can feel pain. Only individuals can have hopes and dreams. Only individuals can feel disappointment when those hopes and dreams are crushed. Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Communities only do what their constituent individuals tell them to do.
These modes of thought are especially dangerous when applied to divide us into different tribes based on race, religion, age, sex, or sexual orientation. Identity politics isn’t just bad policy; it’s a threat to my mental health. I simply cannot live in such a hostile environment for long. It is literally torture for me to be expected to interact with someone not as an individual, but as a representative of everything that is right and wrong with whatever group(s) I (or they) consider themselves to belong to. It is literally torture to have every interaction with others processed through a lense where I am simply considered to be one of “them.” I am an individual, and so is everyone else. Race is a nebulous, poorly-defined means of categorization unimportant to most daily activities. Yet, I am told that some groups are dominant and others are disadvantaged and to correct this we must make use of subsidies, reparations, affirmative action, or other government policies that help one group at the expense of others.
Even if I were to concede that it was appropriate to treat individuals as members of groups, we would still need to agree which groups they belong to. How are we to classify a person who is half Hawaiian and half Cuban? How are we to classify a person who has two Irish grandmothers, a Nigerian grandfather, and an Indian grandfather? How mixed can someone be until they are considered a different race? If you go back far enough, we are all mixed.
Are all whites one race? Those in the former Yugoslavia might disagree. Are Jews white? Those in Nazi Germany didn’t think so. Are all blacks one race? Africa is the most genetically and linguistically diverse continent, yet there are those in the United States that argue that “black” should be capitalized because it refers to a single ethnicity. (4) What this boils down to is that there is no non-arbitrary way to decide which group is “dominant” and which group is “disadvantaged.” The same individual might be told they are part of the white majority one day and then told they are part of the Sicilian minority the next. Since we all have unique DNA (excluding monozygotic siblings) and addresses, it could be said that every individual on the planet is a member of a racial minority of one.
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual.” – Ayn Rand
“Everyone is special. Everyone in his or her own way.” – Barney The Dinosaur
Dividing us by religion runs into the same problem. Are Northern Baptists really that different from Southern Baptists? Are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses really Christians? Are Catholics and Protestants the same religion? Are Muslims, Jews, and Christians actually part of a single Abrahamic religion? Where do you draw the lines?
Who defines what is and isn’t a religion? Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? Is atheism a religion? Is agnosticism a religion? When one has a sincerely-held belief, what defines whether the belief is religious or not? How can we grant exemptions to military service or vaccine mandates on religious grounds other than to simply let anyone declare anything?
A central tenet of my religion is that religion has nothing to do with belonging to a group or submitting myself to the teachings of any priest, prophet, or book. Another tenet is that of lifelong learning. Because I am always learning new things, I change my mind. Another tenet is to not hold all beliefs with unwarranted certainty. How strong do my beliefs have to be to cross the threshold that they qualify me for an exemption? Who decides?
Besides, why are race and religion so important anyways? If we are going to group people by their observable characteristics, why not height, handedness, age, or Body Mass Index instead? It all seems so arbitrary.
That the rights of individuals exist I consider as obvious as the existence of gravity or air. I have always felt it. More importantly, I know you have too. It’s not up for debate. Communities do not have rights. There is no such thing as Asian rights or Christian rights. There are only the same human rights we all have. Identity politics drives incivility and destroys friendships.
It was always personal to me…
I accept that I will not always get my way. I accept that taxes and safety regulations will cause products I buy to be more expensive than I would like, but this is a diffuse cost able to be mitigated by other factors (like being able to get a better job). What I have trouble accepting is when the government encroaches on my personal life. This is oppressive. This is tyranny. To be sure, the United States is far less oppressive than Saudi Arabia or North Korea, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t still oppressed.
I have thought for years of taking a road trip around the country but haven’t had the money. On the shorter trips I have previously taken, lodging has often been a problem. The price of campgrounds has gone up, they expect you to register earlier in the day than I know where I’m going to be, and on weekends they are always full. I am perfectly content to sleep in my car on the side of the road or in an out-of-the-way parking lot, but in many places around the country the police have been known to wake people up and chase them away for loitering. The police would actually prefer it if I fell asleep at the wheel. Do police give up their consciences when they join the force? This is evil!
Add to this all the prohibitions against unlicensed fishing, alcohol on the beach, firearms in certain parks, and requirements of car registration, inspections, driver’s licenses, and car insurance and I feel very oppressed. Granted, each of these things taken alone might have some good reasons behind them, but taken together it is too much to expect anyone to bear. People tell me to let some things go and choose my battles, but no one ever tells the government to let some things go and choose its battles. They only take more and more! I don’t try to control them; why do they feel so strongly that they must control me? Do I have an unhealthy obsession with freedom or do they have an unhealthy obsession with control? If there is anyone here with an unhealthy obsession, it is them. Enough is enough!
I always wear my seatbelt, not only for safety reasons, but because it keeps me in place and I like the feel. I want to wear my seatbelt. However, that any state government would dare to command me to do so on threat of punishment makes me want to cut it off and stuff it down their throats. They are supposed to work for me to protect me from others, not from myself. In a democracy, we are all monarchs. I AM THE SOVERIEGN! If people can’t be trusted to make their own personal decisions, how can they be trusted to vote to make decisions for the whole country? Is this a democracy or not?
One time in Florida my parents took me to a beach and then to a restaurant. Unknown to me, county ordinance had banned straws along the beach. I would no sooner expect to be given soda without a straw than soda without a cup. It was bad customer service. If I had known, I would have ordered my soda without ice so I would not have to drink it with the cubes bumping my face and the soda dribbling around them and down my chin. I couldn’t get them to fix it.
One of the things I like about Star Trek is the vision it has of what humanity could be. If only we put aside our squabbling, we could build starships, eliminate poverty, and invent technology that makes our lives easier – never perfect, but constantly approaching perfection. However, if I can’t even enjoy my beverage with a straw, we are going backwards. Florida is basically a third-world country.
Perhaps I’m being overly sensitive. It’s possible. People are sensitive to different things. Those with autism are often highly sensitive to sound. Those with photophobia are sensitive to light. Some people are allergic to peanuts. However, while no one would suggest that we rub peanut butter into the faces of those who are allergic, people do endorse forcing government tyranny on those who object to it. This needs to stop.
When is war justified?
Wars carry immense risks. Even for the winners, costs are high. When is war justified? The Declaration of Independence gives some useful guidelines. It states that such desperate acts should not be taken for “light and transient causes,” but that it becomes the right and duty of every citizen when a long train of events “evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism.”
An example of a light and transient cause would be the 2008 bank bailouts. It cost taxpayers money and propped up financially unhealthy institutions at the expense of the rest of the economy. However, the burden was light and the policy was temporary and only in response to a specific temporary threat. It was a wrong policy, but certainly not something worth overthrowing the government over.
On the other hand, when government takes a portion of your paycheck before you even see it and makes you apply to get it back (5), when police run checkpoints to look for illegal immigrants or drunk drivers (6), when the IRS can simply snatch all your money and make you prove your innocence to get it back (7), when the government backs the majority of mortgages (8), when banks are threatened into not doing business with certain types of people (9), when the NSA listens to your phone calls and reads your emails (10), when they begin to regulate salt (11), sugar (12), and plastic straws (13) in restaurants, when they won’t let you sleep in your car (14), when they won’t let you use a phone while driving (15), and when they expect you to get a license to fish (16), shovel snow (17), or open a lemonade stand (18), and all these things run on and on, it begins to feel like the walls are closing in. When laws are passed to make it harder to run for office (19), hold protests (20), or to buy guns or ammunition (21), it starts to look like the elites want the rest of us defenseless so they can continue to grow their tyranny unopposed.
In Vietnam, the way they capture pigs is to lure them in bit by bit. Food is left in the same location day after day so that they get used to the area and feel comfortable. A wall is built, then a second, and then a third, so that the area is gradually more enclosed. If this is done gradually enough, the pigs do not notice. Finally, a gate is installed, completing the fence. The pigs go through the gate to eat one last time. Then the gate is closed and they never come out.
Do the entirety of all our permanent government programs and regulations “evince a design?” The overwhelmingly obvious answer is YES! Anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool. Such a design need not necessarily be deliberate (though I believe it is), it could merely be the product of an accumulation of bad choices by different people over generations. The important thing is that once the walls are in place, anyone could close that gate.
The only thing still open to debate is how close the walls are to being completed and how firm they are. Do we have the collective strength to push them down? Can we do it without violence? Is the wall-building process reversible? It might or might not be time to panic right this second, but no one can seriously deny the growing danger.
There are people who argue that no system is ever perfect and that injustices will always happen even in the best countries, but that these will be few and far between. What I want them to understand is that I’m not concerned about diffuse costs of policies such as bad air quality or low wages; I’m concerned about the fates of those wrongfully imprisoned, killed, or who have had their businesses taken away. The victims may be few and far between, but this kind of pain is not spread out. As explained earlier, countries do not feel pain; individuals do. A few people hurt in a country of four hundred million might not be the end of the world, but for those individuals their world has ended. For them, it is the end of the world. For them, revolution is worth it. No matter what damage they cause, I have no choice but to hold them innocent. I know what it’s like to have a target on your back. I don’t have the luxury of saying, “It will never happen to me.” So long as even one person is being unfairly treated, the system must be fought. If the system will not yield to reform, it must be destroyed.
I have also encountered people who claim not to understand why people like me hate the government so much. They tell me the government isn’t some foreign entity, but that the government is us. It is the ultimate collective will of every member of the community – our family, friends, and neighbors. It is the highest form of union. They tell me it is always best to work through the government rather than pursue a personal agenda – even an altruistic one – going so far as saying that money should never be given to private charity but that the government should take care of everything. They tell me that we all belong to each other. This attitude I find both incomprehensible and extremely dangerous.
Related to this issue is another: People who are perfectly okay with fighting dictatorial tyranny somehow think it improper or immoral to fight democratic tyranny. Immediately after the American colonists expelled the British, there was a rebellion in Massachusetts led by Daniel Shay over taxation, exploitative lending, and other issues. They had freed themselves from London and now wanted to complete the job by freeing themselves from Boston. Strangely, the same people in the east of the state that had argued that all nations had the right to self-determination refused to allow those in the west to shape their own destiny, arguing that representation in the legislature was enough (22).
Much later, during the civil war, it was actually argued by those in the north of the country that states were not allowed to secede. It was okay to secede from Britain because the king had imposed an arbitrary government and taxation without representation, but states seceding from a democracy were thwarting the will of the people (23).
This is crazy! Since when does the size of the mob breaking down my door dictate when I am allowed to defend myself? Am I allowed to shoot a single rapist, but not a group of ten? What difference does it make to me that my neighbors democratically elected them for this job? Am I any less dead if the bullet that hits me was fired by a soldier or police officer than fired by a robber or jihadist?
Knowing that it is my neighbors making decisions rather than some distant monarch doesn’t make me feel any safer. I know some of my neighbors and I have found that most of them are either incredibly gullible or incredibly stubborn. They are quick to jump to conclusions before the facts are in, quick to condemn others they do not know, and are full of ridiculous prejudices. They might not hurt people themselves but are perfectly happy to elect others to outlaw activities people enjoy. Some of them want to outlaw homeschooling, smoking, gambling, using a cell phone while driving, and even free speech!
Knowing that it is my neighbors making decisions that affect my life doesn’t make me any less upset or less willing to defend myself. It only makes me begin to wonder whether I could legitimately extend my right to defend myself from shooting intruders in my house to shooting people at the polling stations. From the way I hear some people talk, I am sure they want to do the same to me.
It brings me no comfort in the slightest to know that I have as much power over others as they have over me. Interdependence is still dependence. Actually, interdependence is worse than dependence because it means that even more people are dependent! I don’t want to rule anyone else. I only want to be free. I can’t stand being micro-managed. Democracy is dictatorship of the majority and the majority is not always right. Democracy without individual rights doesn’t make us all masters; it makes us all slaves.
Until people begin to accept the obvious and self-evident truths I am laying down, there is nothing to talk about. Political discourse is impossible. There is only war.