When laws make specific behavior illegal, the state can pretty much do whatever it wants. Under this precedent, the state basically asserts itself as the morality judge where it now can determine what is a ‘good’ society and by consequence, what is ‘good’ for society. As a result, those who do not meet this requirement become the undesirables. We know where this path ultimately leads.
There is an old first year law school definition of crime, which according to Judge Andrew Napolitano is also an ancient definition, which says that crime is harm. Thus if one is doing something and no one is harmed, then there is no crime. To say with absolutely certainty an act that is not a crime, but infer it will lead to crime is disingenuous and non sequitur. It presumes government has foresight into the future, a completely absurd notion. Thus by implication, the act in question must be made a crime. Worse yet, it allows government to make any wild non-provable claim to demonize specific activity. For example: “If we don’t reform healthcare, millions of uninsured will die.” Well, those same people have been uninsured up to this point and haven’t died, so why would they suddenly die now? What about this whopper from the 1920’s, “Alcohol use leads to crime.” We happen to know that the alcohol prohibition exponentially increased crime. For one, it created huge profit incentive for organized crime. Two, anyone who continued to drink was now considered a criminal.
Anyone should be able to discern that to act of your own will, without impediment, is freedom. In this framework of freedom you have responsibility, and are responsible for those decisions that you make. Could you crash your car into another vehicle if you are texting? Yes. Could you also crash when applying lipstick? Yes. What about talking to someone? Yes. What about changing the radio? Yes. Should all of these activities be outlawed because you could potentially crash? Put another way, what shouldn’t be considered illegal under this pretense? If crashing constitutes damage (harm), then fault determines who is liable. Since there are laws against damaging another’s property already, why do we need laws against the infinite amount of situations or conditions that could occur to allow this accident to happen? If a person is negligent, an accident will happen. Whatever behavior was being exercised at the time of the accident is irrelevant. A person did harm, they were negligent thus they were at fault and are responsible to compensate for damages incurred.
The bottom line is, with each law you become less free. With each regulation of behavior comes more tyranny. Can anyone honestly say (without laughing) that government is moral? When one forfeits their ability to determine what is moral to an immoral institution, people lose their compassion and humanity. To demonstrate, I give you citizen A. This is a real comment by a person from the article linked above.
“They should give the death penalty for people caught texting while driving. That will get them to stop, and it will keep the roads safer.” - Mr. Lucas Brice, Nashua
The fact that there are people out there, who think like the above comment disturbs me greatly. The idea that morality can be shoved down your throat via the barrel of a gun is to engage in doublethink. Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in your head simultaneously, and believe both of them. From the novel 1984, there were three specific pieces of doublethink the party espoused to maintain ignorance of the body public, and kept them compliant.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
I don’t think it’s difficult to find these forms of doublethink in the common day thinking of the everyday individual. An apt one from the article in question would be:
Morality is Force
If one can’t be moral under force, then one can’t force morality upon another. It’s self-contradictory. This actually falls within the Freedom is Slavery doublethink, in that if you’re not in control of your actions, then how can you be free?
This fallacious spiral we have observed follows, in that all behavior will continue to be restricted until crime disappears. We know this is impossible, yet this is the logic behind each regulation of behavior. Every activity which could possibly result in crime must be regulated through law or licensure. The people continue to be deceived that laws will make them safe, so they sacrifice whatever freedom they have left for “security.” Well, if safety means being tracked 24/7, being watched 24/7, needing permission to move from place to place, being searched at checkpoints or airport terminals, having no ability to speak without being sued for hurting someone’s feelings, requiring me to carry my ID (papers) with me at all times, needing government permission to protect myself (gun permit), and needing the state’s approval (license) to work. If that's my options, "security" as imposed by the state, or freedom?
I choose freedom, and all the responsibility that comes with it.
Travis
0 comments:
Post a Comment