Back when I was still in the Air Force, I was required to attend annual fire safety/fire extinguisher training; primarily because my job required that I work with flammable materials. One of the first things they teach you is the fire triangle; the three basic requirements for a fire. The fire triangle is exactly what its name implies, a triangle with each side being one of the three components necessary for a fire; fuel, oxygen and heat. The way a fire is put out is by depriving it of one, or more, of those three essential elements.
I bring this up, not because I want to talk about fire safety, but to use it as an analogy to describe something else; what I have taken to calling the Triangle of Tyranny. The Triangle of Tyranny is just like the Fire Triangle in that there are 3 essential elements for tyranny to exist, and if you take any one of them away, tyranny collapses. Those elements are; lawmakers, law-enforcers, and law abiders.
If people would think about it, it makes sense, doesn’t it? If there is no entity writing laws, then there are no laws to enforce or obey, and tyranny (at least tyranny imposed by government) would not exist. If there happen to people writing laws, but no enforcement mechanism, or law-enforcement, then the laws would be nothing more than words written by men who were powerless to enforce them, and tyranny could not exist. Finally, how could tyranny exist if there were law makers and law enforcers, but nobody, and I mean NOBODY obeyed the laws? What are they going to do, arrest everyone? Who would they govern (tax and impose their laws upon) if they did? So, you see, for tyranny to exist, all 3 components of the Triangle of Tyranny must exist; remove any of them away and tyranny cannot exist.
While that may seem simple enough, we have to come to an agreement as to how government gets its authority and how far that authority extends before we can determine whether or not government is, in fact, tyrannical; and that’s where the problem arises. The Democrats believe that when the Republicans are in control, government is tyrannical. Conversely, the Republicans believe that when the Democrats are in control, government is tyrannical.
If we cannot come to an agreement as to what defines tyrannical government, how are we to prevent government from becoming tyrannical? What if both parties, and their faithful, are wrong; what if neither side understands the true nature and purpose of government? If that’s the case (which it is) then all we’ll accomplish is swapping out one group of tyrants for another.
So first off, we must ask; where does government come from; where does it get its power and authority? The second chapter of John Locke’s Second Treatise begins by saying, “TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”
Now, I’ve had discussions with people who say that we are incapable of existing without government; there would be chaos if we even attempted it. The ONLY reason that is true is due to the fact that mankind tends to disregard the law of nature, which states, “…that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
I have said it before, and I’ll say it again; Natural Law sounds awful similar to the Laws handed down to Moses by God Almighty; thou shalt not murder; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not covet. If everyone would abide by those simple laws, there would be no need for government; unless of course you wanted to use government as a tool for plunder and tyranny; which is exactly what people use it for.
I have heard many people say that they know their rights, while at the same time supporting measures that deprive others of their rights. If all men are equal and independent, then all men (women included) are equal in their rights, and no one, or group, can deprive them of their rights and liberty without violating the law of nature.
While our rights and liberty may not be secure under the law of nature, we do have the right to defend them against any, and all, attacks. That is something our ancestors understood; as attested to by something Samuel Adams said in 1772, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”
Therefore, if we are all equal and independent, and the law of nature dictates that it is our right to defend our lives, liberty and property, then the only legitimate function government could possibly serve is to act as an entity to pass laws that further that purpose. Frederic Bastiat explained that quite clearly in his 1850 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.”
While I’m not saying that government, or that collective force, cannot serve other functions; such as building roads or schools, I am saying that for government to be allowed to do so it MUST be by unanimous consent of every person who is subject to the authority and dominion of that government. From the very beginning, dating back to 1787-89, that was not the case with our current system of government; there were those who vehemently opposed it; yet they became subject to its authority the moment the Constitution was ratified. Cannot it be said that they suffered under a tyrannical government not of their choosing; as have every individual who has opposed this system ever since?
Food for thought…
In any case, for government to be fair and equitable, it MUST equally protect the life, property, and liberty of every person who is subject to its authority; otherwise, it becomes, by the very definition of the word, tyrannical. I hear people say that they respect the rights of minorities, yet at the same time they support laws that deprive me of my rights…my liberty. Ayn Rand proved them by be liars when she stated, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” You may not like Rand, but you can’t deny her logic.
I think, I hope, that I have firmly established the function, the legitimate function, of government. It’s pretty obvious that government does not serve the function it is supposed to; not when both sides complain that the other uses the power of government to deprive them of their rights. Therefore, it should be clear that one of the ways in which we could end tyranny is by getting rid of the lawmakers; those who pass the laws that violate the rights and liberty of individuals.
However, as I have said numerous times, it isn’t Joe Biden (or whoever happens to be President); it isn’t Mitch McConnel or Nancy Pelosi, and it isn’t even any of the Justices on the Supreme Court who make sure you comply with the laws that government passes – it is law enforcement; your esteemed Thin Blue Line.
Now I can almost sense your hackles rising, so let me explain a few things for you.
If government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, then those who are hired to enforce the law derive their authority from us as well; for they are merely government employees; tasked with ensuring that the laws, the fair, just, and equitable laws, are complied with. Yet, regardless of the authority given them, they are human beings; just like you and I. As such, they too must obey the law of nature, or accept that they are tyrants.
Regardless of whether they know what Natural Law states is irrelevant; as the old legal maxim ‘ignorantia juris non excusat’, or ‘ignorance of the law does not excuse.’ If they violate the rights of an individual when they enforce the law; if they deprive an individual of their rightful liberty when they enforce the law; if they deprive an individual of their property when they enforce the law; there is no excuse for their actions; they are tyrants. End of story, case closed.
But they are only following orders Neal; they have no choice. No, no, no; they have a choice; they can leave that profession and find one that does not require that they violate the rights and liberty of the individual. So don’t give me that following orders nonsense!
But what about those, such as the Oathkeepers; aren’t they the good guys? Are they; just because they have sworn not to enforce gun confiscation laws? What about all the OTHER laws they enforce? Do they get a pass for all the other infringements upon your rights and liberty; just because they’ve promised not to take your guns?
If these Oathkeepers, and even those in law enforcement who do not like the laws they are enforcing, were truly on the side of our rights and liberty they would be arresting their fellow officers; the bad ones who enforce daily every single law that does not serve the function government should; which is securing our rights to life, property, and liberty. Furthermore, they would be arresting those lawmakers who pass the laws that deprive us of our right to life, property, and liberty.
So don’t tell me that they are on our side; they’re just doing their jobs…I don’t buy it. I quit my job because I refused to obey the tyrannical mandate that I wear a face mask. If they wanted to, they could quit their job as well. In fact, if they had any respect for the rights and liberty of those they claim to serve, they would quit, and they would oppose law-enforcement as fervently as I do.
So, the next thing we COULD do to get rid of tyranny is to remove the law enforcement side of the Triangle of Tyranny. Unfortunately, just as people won’t get rid of the lawmaking side, tyranny continues to thrive in the former land of the free.
The final way to rid this country of tyranny is if the people simply revoke their consent to this system and stop obeying the laws it passes. I don’t see that happening either; people have become too dependent upon the many goodies and benefits it provides them. I don’t see it happening when people put on their face diapers like obedient little drones; just because that asshat Anthony Fauci told them to. I don’t see it happening when people willingly apply for permits and licenses to exercise their inherent and unalienable rights.
There are a multitude of reasons for which I don’t see people revoking their consent to government, and standing up for their rights and liberty; one of which is, deep down, they enjoy being slaves. In his book, The Politics of Obedience, Etienne de la Boetie sticks the knife right were it belongs when he says, “Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and fainthearted? If two, if three, if four do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice?”
I’m not saying I’m totally free, that I’m out their fighting the good fight; as those brave ancestors who fought for our independence did. I am saying that I am not a willing slave; I do not bow down and worship those who pass and enforce the laws that make me a slave; as do all those who vote, and fly their Thin Blue Line flags.
I accept that I am a slave, making no claim to freedom; as do so many of my countrymen. I do so under duress; resisting when and where I can. As Robert Heinlein so aptly said, “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
Most of all, I recognize the trap that ensnares me, and I realize that until more people do, and take the necessary steps to free themselves from it, they will never again see, or experience, freedom in America.
May 4, 20221
~ The Author ~
Neal Ross, Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Send all comments to: bonsai@syix.com.
If you liked Neal’s latest column, maybe you’ll like his latest booklet: The Civil War: (The Truth You Have Not Been Told). Life continues to expand for this prolific writer and guardian of TRUE American history.