What do you think is the biggest problem this country faces now; the one thing those seeking your vote in the upcoming Presidential Election should focus their attention upon? Is it the conflict in Israel? Is it the threat of another pandemic? Is it the high cost of groceries? Is it safety in our public schools? What do you believe the next President should make his top priority?

Many voters allow the news media to determine the key issues political debate should center around; aided by polling agencies that take a sampling of what issues are of the most importance to the general public. The problem with that is that there may be an issue of great importance, but if it does not get a high enough percentage rating in the poll, it gets left off the list of issues the media focuses its attention upon.

The above-mentioned topics are just issues; they are not the function government should serve. These are the things the people think government should be addressing. Let’s look at it from another perspective by using an analogy. Let’s say you have a car. The function of that car is to safely, and reliably, get you from Point A to Point B. Now that car may need a paint job, it may have a broken tail light, or the weather stripping around the doors may need replacing. Those are just issues with the car; they have nothing to do with the function that car is supposed to serve. It’s the same with people’s thoughts on government; people focus all their attention upon issues of importance to them, while neglecting to pay any attention to how well government is doing what it is supposed to do.

Do you want to know what I believe is the most important issue that needs to be addressed in America? Sure you do; that’s why you’re here, right; to see what I have to say. I see the rampant ignorance of the American people as to the function their government should serve as the single most important issue that needs to be remedied. The function of government should be to provide justice for all; after all, that is what the Pledge of Allegiance you recite says, isn’t it;  ‘…with liberty and justice for all.’

The problem people have with justice is that they confuse it with making sure that people obey the law; that they are punished when they do not. The problem with that line of thinking is that the law is simply words written upon a piece of paper, decreed binding, by men who have been given power to pass ‘laws’ by the people. Laws are not always moral, and they do not always serve justice. Slavery, at one time, was perfectly legal; sanctioned by the highest law of the land – The Constitution. Yet was slavery moral? Did it ensure that justice was served to those who were held in bondage?

Do you know what apostasy is; as it pertains to religion? Apostasy is the abandonment of one’s religious beliefs, often accompanied by conversion to another faith; such as if a Christian abandons Christianity and becomes a Buddhist. In some Islamic countries apostasy carries with it the death penalty, while in others it can lead to civil action; such as the annulment of marriages, or the seizure of property. That is the ‘law’ in some Islamic countries; but does it serve justice? Christians believe that the LORD has commanded that we shall have no other God but Him; but they do not take away a person’s right to choose, or penalize them if they abandon their faith.

So, what is justice? I think Lysander Spooner described it best, so I will defer to what he had to say about it, “The science of mine and thine — the science of justice — is the science of all human rights; of all a man’s rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I look at justice like this; if you do not take that which is mine, and I do not take that which is yours, then justice is served. If you do not harm me, or my property, and I do not harm you, or your property, then justice is served.

Spooner then goes on to say that justice is ‘…the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other.’

I think most people confuse peace among members of society as complying with the laws that govern that society. I’ve already shown how the ‘law’ is not always moral, nor is it always just; so that brings into question the validity of that belief.

Peace among members of society, in my opinion anyway, only exists when people adhere to the Golden Rule; Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. I look at it this way; if you don’t mess with me, I won’t mess with you. If people lived by that creed, then justice (peace among men) would reign supreme. In fact, if people lived by that creed, it would eliminate the need for a governing entity to ensure that justice was served. After all, did not James Madison say, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” (Federalist 51)

It is because men are not angels, because they cannot respect the life, property, rights and liberty of others that necessitates laws to punish those who cannot abide by 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…”

However, that is the only function government should serve; when government goes beyond that function and begins helping one class, or segment, of society, at the expense of the property or rights of another segment of society, justice is no longer being served. In fact, that is the entire premise Frederic Bastiat’s 1850 book, The Law, centers around; as stated in the opening paragraph of that book, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! 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!”

Bastiat then goes on to say, “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. 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.”

So, what recourse do people have when government no longer serves justice? Well, they can do what the American people have been doing since the day I was born, and long before that; they can go to the polls and swap out those who govern; hoping that this new batch of politicians will get things right. The problem with that strategy is that the majority of Americans do not care whether justice is served; they only want to put people into power who will benefit them; with no regard as to how the things they do might deprive others of justice.

That is why any form of government that is based upon democratic principles is, fundamentally, unjust; for it rests upon the concept of majority rule. That means, if the majority of the people consent to something, it does not matter what the minority thinks, the majority wins the day. I think Ben Franklin gave the best description of democracy in action when he said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting for what they are going to have for lunch.”

It is ironic that the people were protected from the evils of democracy by The Articles of Confederation; which stated that nothing could become law unless it received the unanimous support of every state legislature. (Article 13) But that shield that protected us from the evils of democracy was torn down by the Constitution; which introduced democracy into our political system. The Constitution was ratified upon democratic principles, and laws are passed by majority vote.

You could very well say that the motto of the framers of the Constitution might have been, “To hell with the rights of each individual; let the will of the majority prevail.” The ironic thing about that is, their precious Constitution was not ratified by a majority of the people whose lives would irrevocably change if that document was adopted; it was ratified by less than 1% of the total population of the United States in 1789. The people who would find themselves governed by a new system of government, liable to pay taxes to, and comply with laws passed, by this system of government had no say in the matter; none whatsoever!

And people continue to believe that this system is good; that it exists to serve justice. At the same time people expose their own hypocrisy; claiming to believe in the concept of individual rights, or equal rights for all. Author Ayn Rand once stated, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

By your saying that, simply because you consent to being governed, I must consent as well, you are proving that you do not have the foggiest idea of what individual rights are! It is the state of nature to be free of control by any other man, or group of men calling themselves a government. You may not agree with me on this, but any form of government that does not have the unanimous support of the governed is tyranny; for it deprives those who do not consent of the right to be free of the decrees government passes.

If a man cannot choose whether or not he will be governed, can that man truly say that he is free? If society does not recognize, or care about, the right of each individual to choose whether or not to subject themselves to the legislative will of society, as enacted by government, then that society has declared war upon justice itself. In his book, Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau states something I would like for you to ponder, “In an unjust society the only place for a just man is prison.”

You cannot say that you are a Christian if you believe that the majority will is enough to impose bondage to a system of government the minority does not consent to. You can take your Romans 13 and put that argument away while you read Daniel 6; which tells the story of how Daniel violated the law when he felt it infringed upon his obligation to worship God as his will demanded.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for those who bring harm to others being made to suffer for their crimes, or those who deprive others of their rights, liberty, and property, being punished for doing so. But all the other things that your government does; I consent to none of it. Yet you say that I MUST for society to function; for peace to be maintained. I would be more than willing to sign a waiver, a release form, if you will, that stated I accept that if I bring harm to another, or deprive them of their rights or liberty, that I may be subject to your laws; but in all other instances I am free and clear of any and all laws and taxes your system of government may seek to impose upon me.

I would willingly forgo all the services government provides the general public, as long as no restrictions were placed upon my ability to sustain my own existence, and defend what is rightfully mine against attack by any member of society. Yet you will not allow me, and the many others who despise your system of government as much as I do, that basic human right; the right to be self-determining.

In that, you are no worse than the vile and corrupt criminals who pass the laws that tear down and trample upon justice; you are no better than that class of jack-booted thugs who enforce the laws that trample justice…YOU ARE A TYRANT! And, as the plaque Thomas Jefferson had over the gate to his home at Monticello says, “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.”

So, who are you obeying?

January 5, 2024

~ The Author ~
Neal Ross, Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Send all comments to: [email protected].

If you liked Neal’s latest column, maybe you’ll like his book: The Civil War: (The Truth You Have Not Been Told). Life continues to expand for this prolific writer and guardian of TRUE American history.