This is all the BS posturing I was talking about. I'd love to see the county sheriff and his men that are ready to die in a shootout with the ATF over a citizen's tax stamp. I would actually REALLY love to see these guys, but it's just a farce at this point. It doesn't matter. It's all smoke and mirrors. The feds will contradict themselves than justify it with another contradiction. Wake up. The rule of law doesn't matter. Law has been subverted to be the arm of the oppressor, and will continue to do so until some moral people take it into their own hands with the full expectation of meeting their maker...because they probably will. The cause need to be more just than your life and your daughter's life. There just aren't many people there yet, and I' not claiming to be one of them. But I do not fool myself that some words on paper written by some dignitary of our rulers says so.
The truth is, the rule of law does not apply in this country (or possibly any others?) any longer. My are a nation of men that rule other men, not of men who rule themselves with rules. Proper governments rule with the consent of the governed, but I do not consent. Where does that get me without action? No where at all.
Quit arguing semantics. If you do you are playing a game you cannot win. Law is not on your side if it can be re-written and perverted at the will of your masters. It should no longer be referred to as law anyways, just the edicts of our rulers enforced by their praetorian guard and those that wish to join the guard and the inner circle for their own selfish desires in this life at the expense of their image in the omniscient eye.
Bastiat, The Law, 1850 -
"<b>The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it!</b> 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!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life—physical, intellectual, <b>and moral life.</b>
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, <b>these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.</b>
<b>Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.</b>
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
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. <b>Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right.</b> 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.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: <b>The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces.</b> And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable— whatever its political form might be.
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non- intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
<b>But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.</b>
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?
<b>The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.</b>"
Emphasis added by yours truly.
And off my (and Bastiat's) soapbox I go.
http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf
The truth is, the rule of law does not apply in this country (or possibly any others?) any longer. My are a nation of men that rule other men, not of men who rule themselves with rules. Proper governments rule with the consent of the governed, but I do not consent. Where does that get me without action? No where at all.
Quit arguing semantics. If you do you are playing a game you cannot win. Law is not on your side if it can be re-written and perverted at the will of your masters. It should no longer be referred to as law anyways, just the edicts of our rulers enforced by their praetorian guard and those that wish to join the guard and the inner circle for their own selfish desires in this life at the expense of their image in the omniscient eye.
Bastiat, The Law, 1850 -
"<b>The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it!</b> 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!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life—physical, intellectual, <b>and moral life.</b>
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, <b>these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.</b>
<b>Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.</b>
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
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. <b>Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right.</b> 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.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: <b>The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces.</b> And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable— whatever its political form might be.
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non- intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
<b>But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.</b>
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?
<b>The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.</b>"
Emphasis added by yours truly.
And off my (and Bastiat's) soapbox I go.
http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf
