A Key Failing Of Humanity

Short installment time.

Humans are full of failings.  We cheat on our spouses, take more than that to which we are entitled, beat, rob, rape, war, and so on down a depressingly long list.

While all these failings may be considered equivalent after a fashion, in the context of proper human freedom, one error stands above the rest: tolerance of the intolerable.

"Governments", "states", or whatever you wish to call the mobs of humans who live to trespass upon their fellows to the greatest degree with which they can get away, do just that: trespass upon the rights of free men to the extent that those men become de facto serfs, and even outright slaves.  It makes no matter how pretty the cage may be that these mobs build around their subjects, for they remain as cages, limiting the rightful prerogatives of their fellow human beings with absolutely zero authority to do so.

And what do those people do who have been trodden upon roughshod?  Nothing of substance; not a whit.  Speech is all well and good, as may be other avenues of redress; but what happens when speech fails, Congress ignores your pleas and demands, and the courts make rulings that serve only to retrench the violations that have been foisted upon you without consent?  That is the point where material non-equivocation shows its utility, but only if people are willing to assume the attendant risks.

When in 1803 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Marbury v. Madison, they assumed a power to which they were not Constitutionally authorized, the act thereby constituting a usurpation.  The usurpation in question was that of the power to "interpret" the Constitution, what has come to be called "judicial review", a rather deceptive term.  With judicial review, SCOTUS assumed the authority to dictate to the nation which statutes were Law and which were not.  This is particularly ironic in the face of the fact that part of the Marbury ruling states:

"...an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void."

All at once, the SCOTUS acknowledges the supremacy of the Constitution, and by extension, the full blossom of the rights of all men, and usurps the power to decide which acts are or not repugnant, apparently failing to consider the two-edged nature of that sword.  In the hands of the righteous and competent man, judicial review might serve as a defense against governmental overreach.  In the hand of incompetents or malefactors, it can and has served to destroy the ability of men to exercise their rights without the perils of the state landing squarely upon them in crushing, life destroying fashion, which is precisely what happens to people today on a basis so common as to be outright vulgar.

But what could good Americans have done to prevent this false assumption of invalid authority by SCOTUS?  Firstly, they could have endeavored to make themselves aware and to spread that knowledge far and wide, that the people of this land would learn of the perfidy of a small cadre of their fellow Americans.  Secondly, and in some respects perhaps more importantly, they could have gone armed to the court and deposed the scoundrels with rapid dispatch, whether it meant running them out of town on a rail, or killing them.

Now, you may think that killing a government official for "doing his job" is a mite extreme, and on that point I would agree fully, extremity being the precise point because it should be clear to everyone by now that individuals in government will hang on to the power they have often even unto their own destruction at the hands of angry mobs.  Those mobs, ready and willing to relieve tyrants of their heads, constitute the ultimate instruments for maintaining the state of freedom for all.  Those who would violate your rights and, upon being informed of the violations,  who refuse to amend their ways have made unto their fellows through their refusals, a statement that is as clear and eloquent as any possible: "your rights are as nothing to me."  When that message comes through via actions, the free man is faced with the choice: heed the call to righteous action, or become a Weakman.  The Freeman is obliged by all that is right, decent, and reasonable to put unrepentant tyrants to their ends, up to and including killing them, for the violations of the rights of one's fellows, as well as oneself, must not be tolerated to any degree whatsoever.  The moment the first violation is allowed, the door to absolute tyranny has been opened, if only slightly ajar.  It makes no matter, for in time those who seek ever greater lordship over their fellows will endeavor to push the doors to absolute despotism ever wider such that one day all he needs do is waltz into the realm your rights as if he owns the place, which is exactly what has been done almost since the earliest days of the Republic.

I will go not further in my exposition as I believe the point has been made, at least for now.  To reject material non-equivocation in whatever form it may take including physical violence resulting the death of unrepentant tyrants is not virtue, but a grave flaw of character marking at best ignorance that cannot be forgiven, save that it be corrected and amended.  At worst, it represents cowardice of the most despicable order.

Those who wish to be free must perforce assume the duties, responsibilities, costs, obligations, and all the other burdens of maintenance.  As an old saw goes, "freedom isn't free."

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.