The other day one of my Facebook friends posted a news story about a guy, Spencer Alan Boston, who was in court facing charges of marijuana possession. While Boston was addressing the judge he pulled out a marijuana cigarette or a joint, as I used to call them, and lit up right there in the courtroom. Bravo dude, BRAVO! If I were in charge of such things I’d give Mr. Boston the Civil Disobedience Outstanding Achievement Award of Excellence. Honestly, this rates right up there with the guy who brought in 3 wheelbarrows full of pennies to pay his property taxes…right on dude!
However, one woman, who shall remain nameless, wasn’t as keen on what he did as I was; calling what he did ‘stoner stupid’ and saying it would not endear anyone to his cause by blowing smoke into a judge’s face. Hmm, I suppose dumping 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor, tearing down tax collection offices, tarring and feathering or threatening tax collectors with harm or death didn’t endear the Son’s of Liberty to their cause either, did it?
I got into a brief discussion with the person who made those comments after I posted a short snippet explaining why I am an anarchist. She responded politely and we had a rather pleasant, although diametrically opposed, discussion. I can handle debating people with opposing ideas if they remain civil and stick to their beliefs on an issue; it is when they get nasty, or start hurling insults at me, that I get mad. That is not debating, that is a cowards way of responding to facts that you have no facts of your own to counter with.
However, there were a few of the comments this person made that I’d like to take a few minutes addressing. The first of these comments was, “It’s not about a single law….it’s about following the established rules or changing them by agreement.”
Now I can’t be certain, but it seems this person is implying that there is a system, that system being government, that establishes rules which dictate how us peasants must live our lives, and it is our duty to obey those rules until we can bring about change by mutual consent. Then when I mentioned that I’m all for laws that protect my life, my property and my liberty, and that the law often does not do that, she said, “change the laws.”
The thing is, and I don’t know how many people realize this, there are different categories, or classes of law. How many people know that among the various classes of law there is Natural Law, Common Law, and Statutory Law? A brief explanation of each is in order before we continue with this discussion.
Natural Law is the law that pertains to man when he lives in a state of nature, free from any regulatory or legislative authority. Locke defines this Natural Law as follows, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
In a state of nature each individual is judge, jury, and sometimes even executioner when it comes to prosecuting violations of Natural Law; meaning a man/woman can choose to let the violations of it go unpunished, they can seek compensation for its violation, or they can impose a death sentence upon those who violate it; should the occasion warrant such a drastic measure.
Thomas Paine once wrote about the transition from a state of nature to one in which men are governed by an entity that has the authority to enact law, “Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights.”
Frederic Bastiat wrote something quite similar six decades later in his book The Law, “If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”
So, if mankind lived under Natural Law each of us would be free to judge the violations of our rights, and to punish those who violated them according to how we felt the crime merited it. Furthermore, upon entering into a civil or political society we do so to better secure our natural rights and liberty; and the power to enact law can serve no other purpose than that which we would have enjoyed in a perfect state of nature; which brings us to Common Law and Statutory Law.
Common Law is defined as that which is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes. Common Law differs from Statutory Law in that it is not imposed upon the people by a legislative body, or a monarch; rather it is commonly accepted among all that these are the proper way to do things, and that those who act outside the established norm are to be considered criminals.
Statutory Law is that which is written and imposed upon the people by a governing authority; which is what most of the laws, rules, and regulations we under today are. If Congress, or a State Legislature passes a law, and the President, or the governor of a State signs it, then that law becomes binding upon all those to whom it applies. If a government establishes a regulatory body, such as the EPA, the DEA, or the BATF, and those bodies enact regulations that tell us what we can and cannot do, those regulations also carry with them the authority to punish those who violate them; meaning they carry the same weight as law.
The problem arises when Statutory Law does not conform to Natural Law; when the laws passed by those delegated with the authority to enact laws on behalf of the people write laws that violate their rights or their liberty. Bastiat explains this phenomenon quite clearly when he says, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it.”
When legislators, be they State or federal, enact laws that violate and restrict our rights and our liberty, we have 4 options to choose from. First, we can simply obey whatever laws our governments impose upon us. Secondly, we can work within the system to amend or abolish those laws that deprive us of our rights and our liberty. Thirdly, we can choose to perform acts of civil disobedience; such as what Mr. Boston did, and what the Son’s of Liberty did during our founding era. Finally, we can abolish the system that seeks to deprive us of our rights and liberty.
I think the overwhelming majority of people in this country choose the first two options; either they simply obey the laws, (COMPLY WITH THEM), or they bitch about them, while trying to get their lawmakers to change their minds and repeal the law that deprives the people of certain rights, or their liberty.
It is when an individual crosses that line from the first two options to the latter that society deems their actions as unacceptable, revolutionary, or a threat to the peace and welfare of the nation. It seems that it is acceptable to bitch and moan about the laws being enacted; it is acceptable to try and vote bad lawmakers out of office; it is acceptable to write or call your elected official to complain about the laws they have chosen to support, but by golly you better not stand up and oppose a law once it is enacted, or seek to abolish the very system that permits such laws to be enacted in the first place.
If one were to undertake a thorough study of the period preceding the American Revolution they would see that those we call our founders did not choose the first option; compliance with the laws being imposed upon them. Sure, they petitioned their King, stating their opposition to these laws, but at the same time they also nullified those laws by refusing to comply with them, or threatening those who sought to enforce the laws upon them.
Can you just imagine the public outrage if millions of patriots suddenly stood up for their rights and threatened violence against our lawmakers and those who enforce the laws they write? How do you think the news media would portray the people if they did that? I can tell you how they’d spin it, we would be called domestic terrorists, or a violent protest. Well gee whiz, I wonder how MSNBC would have reported the Son’s of Liberty marching to the home the tax collector, or their governor and threatening them with severe bodily harm; even death?
When those acts of civil disobedience did not deter their government from enacting more restrictive laws, they sought to sever the ties that bound them to the system that had the authority to do so; they revolted. But mention either of those two options today and people begin back peddling away from you as if you had lost your mind.
Yet I think that is what defines a patriot; not so much how they love their country, or support their system of government; rather the extent to which they will take a stand against those who seek to restrict their rights and their liberty – up to and including the use of force against those who seek to do so.
What really cracks me up with these statists who say we must obey the law, or work within the system that wrote the law to alter or abolish it, is that they don’t realize that the system they support was established by men who violated the law.
What the Constitution says is of little concern to well over 90% of the people today; all that matters is that it exists, it established our system of government, and it is the supreme law of the land. What’s funny is that it was written and ratified in violation of the existing laws of 1787-1789; making those who wrote and ratified it criminals.
Those who wrote the document so few have read where given specific instructions to amend the existing system of government, not replace it with an entirely new system. Those who adopted this ‘new’ system of government did so in a manner not prescribed by law; Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation, “”
. Instead of obeying existing law, they ratified it by the means prescribed in the very document they were debating; Article 7 of the Constitution, “…nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”
Instead they adopted this new system of government by a clause found within the document they were debating, Article 7 of the Constitution, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”
How can anyone defend a system that was put into effect through fraud and deceit? How many know that those who attended the convention that ultimately produced the Constitution were sworn to absolute secrecy for 50 years after the convention; that they were not to speak a word to anyone about what took place during their deliberations at all to anyone.
Most people today are content to simply live their lives under a system, a system they don’t have the first idea of what it is actually supposed to be doing, or how it came into existence, and was argued vehemently against by some very well educated and patriotic men. To them, their ignorance is bliss; their only concern being that their political party gets to sit in control of that system; and to hell with rights and liberty!
My allegiance is not to any system; particularly when that system has a proven track record of infringing upon my rights and liberty. Working within the system is a joke, and a bad one at that. The system is rigged in its own favor and the odds of us ever obtaining true justice from it are next to nothing. Don’t you find it a bit odd that one of the very first acts of Congress was to basically re-write Article 3 of the Constitution; the article that deals with the Judicial Branch? Don’t you think it a bit odd that they felt it was of such pressing importance to establish federal courts throughout the country; both District and Circuit Courts, where federal judges can sit and determine WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MEANS?
Work within the system you say; vote in better candidates you say; change the law you say; well I say fuck that, the system sucks, and it doesn’t give a damn about what we want. Lawmakers pass laws in total disregard for the limits imposed upon their authority, or in total disregard for our rights and liberty; the government hires jack-booted thugs who do not care about protecting our rights and liberty, all that matters is enforcing ‘the law’; and then we have a judicial branch that condones all this by expanding the powers given government by upholding laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.
And you expect me to fight that system and change the laws; and I haven’t even begun to discuss those who have wormed their way into key positions, non-elected positions, within the government and wield extensive power as to policy and the laws government will enact: The Deep State.
All this talk about draining the swamp is a joke as far as I’m concerned. I’d be more concerned with how come we suffer under a system that even allowed such corrupting influence to become intertwined with a system that was supposedly established to represent the people; not special, business and banking interests. You could drain the swamp, theoretically that is, and what’s to stop it from filling up again in 5, 10, 15 years? If there are no safeguards, no precautions put into place to prevent this outside influence from working its way back in, then what’s the use in fighting it?
I say tear the system down, it sucks. The way I see it; any system that feels it has the right to use force against those who seek to exercise their rights and their liberty is a system that does not deserve to exist; and that fits our system to a T. Who were the Branch Davidians hurting when the FBI came in and burnt them and their compound to the ground? Who were the Weavers hurting when the FBI came in and gunned down Vicki and Sammy Weaver?
Who am I hurting if I smoke a little recreational marijuana after work; yet federal law says it is a crime, and with its regulatory power over the sale of it I can be denied the right to buy a gun because I might be a ‘dangerous drug addict’ if my name appears on a registry of people buying weed from government licensed vendors.
People tell me that as a species, humans are bad, and they are evil, and that a system is needed to restrain them from bringing harm to others. Their solution is to elect these very same ‘bad and evil’ people into positions where they can dictate how we must live our lives; what laws we must obey; even when those laws violate our rights and restrict our liberty. Madness, I tell you, absolute madness.
Yet people support that system, thinking that because they are allowed to vote it represents them. What utter foolishness; what abject servitude! Yet try to convince people of the error of their ways, and of their logic, and you may as well have insulted their mother or their wife; they become angry and defensive; calling you all manner of names and insults.
Morpheus was right, “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”
There are 3 categories of people living in this country now. There are those who are completely apathetic as to what’s going on in America in regards to the every expanding police state and the subsequent loss of liberty. As Plato said, “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Notice he did not say that those who don’t care are bad, he just said the consequence for their indifference was to be ruled by evil men.
Next there are those who are not indifferent, but have fallen prey to the two party paradigm; that the system can be fixed, or controlled depending upon which political party gains control of it. These people are best described by a quote from Carroll Quigley’s book Hope and Tragedy, “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies… is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”
Ever since I began studying politics and history I cannot recall one instance of an unconstitutional law being repealed, or any of our lost rights and liberty being restored when a change in political party leadership took place…NOT ONE INSTANCE! The TSA, the DEA, the FBI, the CIA, the BATF, the EPA, the BLM, and all the other alphabet soup agencies keep on restricting our rights and liberty, and not a single law; such as any of the gun control laws, or the Patriot Act has ever been repealed.
So prove to me how Quigley was wrong in his stating that no matter how gets elected there isn’t a significant shift in the policies of our government…PROVE IT OR KEEP YOUR TWO PARTY BULLSHIT TO YOURSELF!
Finally, there are those of us who have taken the red pill, those of us who are unplugged and see the system in all its evil glory; see it for what it is; a system that enslaves the people governed by it. We seek two things and two things only; to educate those who are still inured to the system and to be free of the system’s power and influence.
We don’t care what you do with your life so long as you don’t interfere with how we live ours. But we are growing weary of you, and your use of the system to tell us how we must live our lives; what we can say and do, what rights we can and cannot exercise.
You can choose to remain ignorant; which is a form of intellectual blindness; but even an actual blind man might not listen to the warnings about crossing a busy street. But eventually the consequence of not heeding those warnings will become obvious to them when they are hit by a speeding car or truck.
You can disregard the warnings of people like me who write incessantly about the dangers of supporting a system that disregards the limits imposed upon it, and passes laws that violate your rights and liberty; you can choose not to read and take as your own personal code of conduct the words of the men who stood for liberty in 1775 and 1776, but when reality hits you like a ton of bricks, you will not be able to hide from it.
And I fear the time in which that reality becomes undeniable is coming sooner than people realize; and when it comes they will cry, “Why didn’t someone try to tell us?”
WELL I JUST DID, SO YOU HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF WHEN IT HAPPENS; FOR YOU CHOSE COMFORT AND SECURITY OVER DEFENDING THE PRECIOUS JEWEL OF LIBERTY. SO CHOKE ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR DECISION!