I’m so angry right now I can barely think straight. I just read where Secretary of State for the state of California, Alex Padilla, is trying to push forward a measure banning the sale and registration of gas powered vehicles in California that are manufactured after 2020. This isn’t some random internet hoax or urban legend, as it came directly from Brian Heap, who is a news anchor for KCRA News out of Sacramento.
I know that stupidity is not limited to California, that it exists in the other states as well; but it seems to be on steroids here in the Golden State, and it is things like this that are causing this state to turn into a cesspool where the government assumes the role of nanny, caretaker, and despot; all wrapped into a nice, tidy elected ball.
What the hell is it about California, and Californians in general, that causes people who live here to lose all sense or reason, all use of logic? Is it something in the air, the water, the food supply? I don’t know what IT is, but I’m damned glad I’m immune to its effects!
When I leave my home I don’t interact that much with the people I encounter. That’s not to say I don’t talk, I’m just saying I don’t sit around shooting the shit like some people do. I’ve often been asked why I don’t talk to others, and I reply that it is difficult to find someone I can have an intelligent conversation with. Sometimes people get mad, asking me if I’m calling them stupid. The only response I can think of is something my dad used to tell me, “If the shoe fits, wear it.”
I can’t count the times I have heard people say something like, “We need to pass a law…” or “There should be a law…” There’s an old saying that applies to people who often say that, “Tis better to let people think you’re a fool than it is to open your mouth and prove them right.” I wonder how many people have ever stopped to ask themselves what a law actually is. According to one dictionary, the law is defined as: the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties. Does that sound about right to you? Okay, here’s another question, and this one’s a bit tougher: What purpose should the law serve?
I honestly can’t say what runs through some people’s minds when they say there ought to be a law prohibiting this or that, or when they give their support to the laws enacted by their government; but from my perspective the very last thing that happens is that they actually THINK about it. I think the number of people who react emotionally to an issue, or think, “Gee, that sounds good” runs upwards of 95%. Rarely do people actually ask if the law under discussion is constitutional, or if it violates our fundamental rights as human beings; or worse, that there may be unintended consequences should that law go into effect.
Do people even think about the fact that the authority to enact laws comes from them, not a bunch of elected, or self-appointed politicians? Do people ever stop to ask themselves what purpose the law is supposed to serve?
Laws can do one of two things; they can either protect our liberty or they can restrict it. The proper balance between law and liberty is a state where just enough laws are enacted so that the people are free to live their lives free of outside, and undo coercion, just so long as they do not violate the lives, property and liberty of others. The moment the law goes beyond that point it is only a matter of time until the law has eliminated the very liberty it is supposed to serve and protect.
In 1850 a Frenchman by the name of Frederic Bastiat wrote an entire book based upon that premise; that book being The Law. Bastiat’s opening comments in that book are, at least from my point of view, a pretty accurate description of how people view ‘the law’ today, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!”
Honestly people, if those elected to positions of authority in government are all powerful, as some believe they are, why do they run campaigns trying to get a majority of the people to vote for them? Think about it this way, the election process is a public job interview where the candidates seeking a position in your company, (the government), run a campaign outlining their qualifications for the open position within that company.
Yet it is YOUR company and YOU get to decide what it should and should not do. In most cases what your company/government can and cannot do is outlined by a charter or constitution of some kind; typically which contains some sort of a bill of rights; placing restrictions upon governments authority, (notice I did not say ability), to enact laws that violate those rights. The reason I did not say ability is because bills of rights are just words on a piece of paper, and paper can’t stop anyone from doing something; if they did there wouldn’t be any murder in this country, because words have already been put down on paper saying that it is a crime to kill someone.
From where I sit I see the American political process as being a bunch of people squabbling and fighting over which set of opinions gets to control the lawmaking process; not whether or not the process itself serves the purpose for which it was established.
If you were completely honest with yourself we would only need 3 laws to ensure that freedom and liberty prevailed throughout America:
1. Thou shalt not kill.
2. Thou shalt not steal.
3. Thou shalt not covet.
If those three laws were in place, and if the people were allowed to enforce them to the best of their ability, true liberty would be enjoyed by all. Would that place a certain amount of responsibility upon each of us to provide for our own wants and needs, our own comfort, our own safety and security? Certainly, but as John Cougar Mellancamp once sang, “There are no free rides, no one said it would be easy.”
I don’t care which side of the political fence a person stands on, you either seek to defend the liberty of everyone, or you seek to deny it to those whose political beliefs you disagree with. If you support lawmakers, or laws that say some people can’t do this, or do that, just because you don’t like what they are doing, then you have forsaken the defense of liberty and placed your political ideology as the guiding force in your decision making process; and this is true for both Republicans and Democrats.
I am not saying that I don’t think there should be any law at all, as that would induce chaos; a state of utter lawlessness where the rights of no one are secure. What I am saying is that the law should be written to defend, or allow people to enjoy the maximum amount of freedom in their lives, so long as they do not harm another in their life, property, or liberty.
The problem in America is not that either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party have enacted a bunch of laws that have screwed things up so badly, it is that the Statist Party has enacted laws that have screwed things up; obliterated liberty in America.
Now wait a minute Neal, I’ve never heard of the Statist Party. Probably not, but I’d be willing to bet that if you vote, you’re a member of it. The Statist Party is the party that believes that government knows better than we do how we should live our lives, and that government has the authority to pass laws that violate our rights and our liberty; and once enacted WE MUST COMPLY!
Take the issue of gun control, or the right to keep and bear arms; a Statist may speak loudly in defense of their right to keep and bear arms, but when the government enacts a ban on certain types of weapons, they comply; when the government tells them that they must register their weapons with government, they comply; when they are told they must obtain a permit to bear their guns, they comply. To a Statist, rights are catch phrases, political slogans – they are not things a Statist is willing to defend at the cost of their life.
When I see and hear politicians speak I listen intently to what they say, and more importantly, what they do as it pertains to enlarging my ability to freely exercise my rights and liberty; and I base my decision to support or oppose them based upon my observations; political party affiliation never comes into play when I do this; it is all based upon their position on my rights, or whether government is authorized to do the things they propose it should do.
The same thing goes to people, as individuals, when I hear them talk about politics. If the things I hear them say that government should do are not among the powers delegated to government by the Constitution, I oppose their view; if the things they say government should do violate my rights or my liberty, I oppose them and their position.
For there to be a crime there has to be a victim, and that victim must have suffered some loss at the hands of the person accused of committing the crime. Murder, rape, theft, arson, assault, and embezzlement are all crimes because someone did something that hurt someone else in their person, property, or liberty. Who does a person hurt if they ingest marijuana – other than possibly themselves? Who does a person hurt if they OWN a fully automatic machine gun; (notice I did not say USE a fully automatic machine gun)?
The 2nd Amendment is quite clear, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It does not indentify, or single out what category of arms they shall be allowed to keep and bear, it covers all arms, from a simple pocket knife all the way up to a belt fed Gatling gun. No lawmaker, no concerned citizen, or Mom’s demanding action have the right to cross the border and violate or restrict that right…NOT NOW, NOT EVER…END OF STORY!
Now, if someone uses that gun to threaten or harm another, or deprive them of their enjoyment of life, property or liberty, then the person guilty of doing so has committed a crime…but until that happens there is no crime, and no law shall be passed which restricts a person’s rights just because they MIGHT commit a crime. That is the danger of these proposed Red Flag laws, they put into the hands of people in government the ability to decide who MIGHT commit a crime.
Sure, they tell us this power will not be abused, that it will not see the rights of ordinary law abiding citizens diminished or restricted. Well they said the same thing about FISA warrants too; how they would only target those suspected of terrorist activities; yet Edward Snowden showed us how our government spies upon ALL OF US, and the Statists among us called him a traitor to his country. Who is the traitor, Snowden or our government for violating our right to privacy?
People think I rant and rave about my government; when the government itself only comprises about 1/4 of all my anger and frustration. My real anger and frustration is focused upon the people who vote for the assholes that enact the laws that restrict my rights and liberty; the people who sit back and wave the American Flag, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and sing along with the National Anthem with patriotic fervor, then bend over and let those they elect screw them out of their freedom without a whimper of protest.
Those people, those Statists, are far more dangerous to liberty than any system of government; for government derives its power from the consent of the people; and if the people would simply stop consenting to it, stop obeying the laws that restrict their liberty, government would wither and die on the vine.
But oh no, they’ve got their diplomas stating they’ve successfully undergone a thorough indoctrination at the hands of government run indoctrination centers, (schools); they are educated and know all about how their government is supposed to work; what their rights are; and most importantly, how it is the patriotic duty of every American to OBEY the law.
That is a bubble that needs to be popped if America is ever to see liberty again, and the pin that could pop it, (if people would just think about it) is found in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “…law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
So while people wallow in their self-imposed ignorance, while they care more about who will win the Super Bowl this weekend, I’ll be sitting here, behind enemy lines, broadcasting my messages of anarchy; hoping that people don’t choke on the boots of tyrants they are intent upon bowing down and licking.
And that ends today’s pirate message from outside the Matrix…