I'm not anti government.I'm anti crime
I went "back and forth" with somebody regarding my general position on "government"for a while. I've summarized part of the exchange below. (This is a highly abbreviated version so it comes off a bit choppy...The LONG version is available here)
For me, on almost every issue, it comes down to the same thing: If a person isn't violating the rights of another, then what they're doing isn't anybody's business. ...when one group tries to FORCE everyone to live by their opinion, violating the rights of others in the process, that DOES bother me.
"I think it all boils down to you hating the government and feeling that any laws the government has created are wrong..."
Nope, you’re wrong. I support laws against theft, murder, rape, slavery, threatening others, offensive assault, etc. What I “hate” is people who use the power of government to commit these obvious “crimes” on an enormous scale and without accountability.
“...but the thing is, many of those laws were created by the people.” AND "...they are there to protect us from ourselves and others because some people are careless and just plain stupid."
The VAST MAJORITY of laws were written by lobbyists and signed by “representatives” that never read the bill. Contrary to your belief, that has nothing to do with “protecting us.”
“It's not a perfect system, it needs improvement, no one would deny that but other than raging on and on about how much you dislike the government and that you feel as long as peoples rights are not violated by the opinions of others you're okay with things. You have your own opinion that violates my rights of having an organized system where people are held accountable.”
That is absolutely absurd. I am “raging on and on” about CRIMES that are committed by government or corporations. Can you try to get that through your head?
I am SEEKING accountability, not seeking to avoid it. I am seeking to expose criminals in the system who abuse their power and the flaws that permit them to exist (flaws that are there in large part because of people who have blind faith in their Gods, be it government or otherwise, and don’t want to hear about things that contradict their desired view.)
Ignorance of how the system really works perpetuates this problem. So I’m trying to educate people about the contradictions. I consider that more useful than putting my head in the sand, ignoring the LIES that are told to manipulate, control and exploit.
How do you think all improvements in “government rule” have come about over the ages? Do such improvements come about from people sitting by and obeying government and ignoring its abuses, or do they come about because people refuse to accept those abuses of power?
How did documents like the Magna Carta and our Constitution come into being? …was it the people who did nothing to fight lawless “authorities” or the people who fought to secure and defend others against lawlessness that brought the changes into existence?
The main difference between you and I is you WANT others to tell you what you can and cannot do. You believe others are qualified to do this and that they only seek this power with “your best interests in mind.” I know that is absolute bullshit because I’ve studied history (recent and past.)
I refuse to sit back and be ruled by people who are morally inferior to me. (Those who lie, cheat, steal, murder, maim, enslave, threaten, etc., while CLAIMING that they are “the good guys.”)
If you would take the time to see how utterly corrupt the system is (starting with our monetary system) you MIGHT finally start to see the bigger picture. …but you don’t WANT to see it. It challenges your faith. It’s so much easier to just believe what was drilled into your head from the time you were a child.
That is fine. People who choose faith over truth will always be “ruled” by somebody. People like me will try to make sure those rulers are not dishonest, violent, sadistic criminals.(If you truly believe in having a group “protect people from themselves because many are careless or stupid” you might want to consider how that philosophy applies to what I’m doing here.)
The bottom line: I am not anti "government" I am anti crime. I believe those who violate the rights of others should be held accountable for their crimes. -No exception for those who call themselves "government."
"...you go on about bad government and yet agree with certain laws that do still control society. It's a contradiction based on your own personal opinion..."
It is very simple and there is no contradiction: I believe violating another person's rights is a crime. It has nothing to do with violating a "legislative" law in my view, it is more a matter of violating intuitive law or our "inalienable rights" as The Founders put it. (Rape is wrong, murder is wrong, theft is wrong, slavery is wrong, forcing others to live as you want them to live, when their actions do not violate your rights, is wrong...intuitively, whether somebody "says so" or not.)
So, when government writes laws that are in agreement with intuitive law, I "agree" with their law. When they write laws that violate our rights, I disagree. (As an example: Slavery was legal, but it still violated intuitive law...it was a CRIME regardless of what the "legislative law" said.)
Continuing, when government VIOLATES the rights of an individual (even IF it has passed a "law" that says it is permitted to do so) I consider its actions a crime. No different than if I or another person violated somebody's "inalienable rights."
...Just because government has written a law against murder and I support that law against murder does not mean I then must 1: Support all other laws the government writes and 2: Ignore it when the government itself murders people.
"Give me some examples of laws that were created that do not protect us."
First: "Protect us" from what? I am not a child and the government is not my parent. I do not WANT or expect it to "protect me from myself." After the age of 18, that is MY job.
Government's only legitimate role is to intervene on my behalf if somebody violates my rights. Likewise, it is supposed to intervene on your behalf if I violate your rights. Unfortunately, these constitutional limits on government power have been ignored so long, and people have become so accustomed to ideas that are totally antithetical to the founding principles, that most people accept absurdities like "the majority rules."
Sorry, but this is NOT supposed to be a "democracy." In a democracy 51% can "legally" decide to enslave the other 49%. That is not the government the Founders won for us. (Nobody has a right, minority or majority, to violate the rights of others...using "government" to justify it "legally" doesn't cut it.)
This gets to the heart of the problem. There is absolutely NOTHING that cannot be "sold" under the banner of "protecting us."
Take alcohol for example. If some people are "irresponsible drinkers" who "violate the rights of others" (intuitive crime) the appropriate governmental role is to punish those irresponsible drinkers for their crimes. The government has no right to commit the LARGER crime of violating everyone's right to drink. (It has no right to "make criminals" out of everyone else for the NON-CRIME of drinking.)
But what if drinking is unhealthy? Shouldn't the government "protect us" from drinking since it's unhealthy? No. The people who call themselves the government are not our parents. Drinking may or may not be unhealthy, but that has no effect on whether a person who drinks has violated another persons' rights.
Besides, simply writing a "law" that declares something "illegal" will not prevent people from doing it. In the case of "non-crimes," it only causes more problems. That is why I brought up prohibition earlier. ALL the costs during prohibition must be measured: Outright enforcement costs, the rise and funding of criminal organizations to meet demand, the additional crime and suffering (not directly related to alcohol) they caused, loss of personal liberties...and what about enforcement priorities in general? Do we really want our government looking for, arresting and jailing people for NON-crimes when there are real criminals out there violating people's rights?
Now, to answer your question about laws that "don't protect us" there are too many to list. But the so-called "Patriot Act," the Military Commissions Act and the John Warner Defense Act come immediately to mind.
Assuming the role of government is to protect inalienable rights, we are not "safer" when it declares (erroneously) the "right" to violate those rights. In fact we are far LESS safe because the government can do more to destroy freedom in this country than any band of terrorists ever could.
Now for the depressing part: A criminal (in government or out) does not care whether or not he has the "right" to do something. ...criminals think only in terms of "might." (In that sense, "rights" are useless against those who are ABLE and determined to violate them.) For this reason, we can't accept or encourage "lawlessness" in government. (Government always has and always will have the ability to commit crimes on a scale that dwarfs the "threat" posed by common criminals.)
So again, if men in government break the law, they must be held accountable. If they conspire to break the law or attempt to justify violating people's rights (crime) they must be held accountable. The government can never "protect our rights" by violating them. That is my view.
Originally posted 6.7.09
Back to Home Page
Back to Letters and Commentary Page