As in, “be careful what you wish for”

Democracy has been accurately described as mob rule.  Why?  Because majority rule IS mob rule.  The majority work their will on the minority, using force to do so.  In the case of the mob, they just do what they want.  In the case of democracy, they use the imprimatur of “legality” to do so.  Thus, anything the majority wishes to do is “legal,” and in the minds of simpletons, it is therefore OK.  In either case, the end result is the same.

But what happens to a society where even the pretense of “legality” falls away?  What happens when laws are flaunted openly, where “the things we need to get done” are prevented by existing laws but we do them anyway in the name of “social good” or “moving forward”?

Typically, that case devolves into a situation where one set of rules applies to the elites, and another set to the unwashed masses (us).  Any serious student of history knows that such has always been the case, but the “special” set of rules is applied behind-the-scenes.  When the elite indulge their inner child and engage in overt, in-your-face statements of “you suck, and we don’t, hahaha”, we know they are either remarkably stupid, remarkably self-indulgent, or scared out of their wits and just not thinking straight.

So, it is with some sense of trepidation that I note the New York Times opinion piece which calls for ignoring the Constitution and just going ahead and getting done the things that the nation “needs”:

Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.

This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

Please click on the link above and read the entire piece.  It is tempting at first to imagine the author is exaggerating to make his point.  He is not.  In his mind we are one simple “loss of respect” away from losing our liberty.  I could ask you if you believe either this government or this society respects you now, let alone whether you believe you retain such respect going forward.

This government has, under both major political parties, asserted the right to murder you whenever and wherever it deems necessary.  It has, under both political parties, asserted the right to detain you indefinitely without trial.  These acts are clearly prohibited by the Constitution.  Yet there seems to be no end to the willingness of the collectivists to make the case for brushing aside Constitutional protections of rights that pre-exist the Constitution itself.

The Constitution was written to protect individual liberty from the encroachment of government.  Clearly, this is a problem for the collectivists.  Those who would ignore it wish to crush the individual and complete the already-advanced process of our enslavement.  They state: “Think of all the things we could do if there was no code, but only guidelines.”

The Code

Yes, indeed.  Think of all the things we could do if we could choose which laws to follow and which to ignore.  Let’s be plain: AFAIAC the author of the NYT piece is advocating the use of increased force against you.  He wants the elites (the government) to have more power, which means you will have less.

The thing that politically cripples the law-abiding producer class is its respect for law.  It is nearly impossible for us to imagine the darkness that lurks in hearts so close to our own, in our own society.  We discount the gravity of the evil that confronts us.

But people are people, and have been understood so for thousands of years.  How should the liberty-loving respond to ever-increasing calls for the use of force in their subjugation?

More just it is doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number compel a greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their libertie, then that a greater number for the pleasure of their baseness, compel a less most injuriously to be their fellow slaves. They who seek nothing but their own just libertie, have always right to win it and to keep it, whenever they have power, be the voices never so numerous that oppose it.

– John Milton, The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth, 1660