Posted on 05/13/2015 9:01:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
Charles Murray, already controversial for writing books on how welfare hurts the poor, on ethnic differences in IQ and on (less controversial, but my favorite) happiness and good government, has written a new book that argues that it's time for civil disobedience. Government has become so oppressive, constantly restricting us with new regulations, that our only hope is for some of us to refuse to cooperate.
Murray's suggestion -- laid out in "By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission," will make some people nervous. He argues that citizens and companies should start openly defying all but the most useful regulations, essentially ones that forbid assault, theft and fraud.
He writes, "America is no longer the land of the free. We are still free in the sense that Norwegians, Germans and Italians are free. But that's not what Americans used to mean by freedom."
He quotes Thomas Jefferson's observation that a good government is one "which shall restrain men from injuring one another (and) shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits."
But our government today tries to do much more.
While we try to invent new things, government constantly seeks new ways to control us. The number of federal crimes on the books is now 50 percent larger than back in 1980 -- a time when many people mistakenly thought the U.S. would cut the size of government.
Murray says, correctly, that no ordinary human being -- not even a team of lawyers -- can ever be sure how to obey the 810 pages of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 1,024 pages of the Affordable Care Act or 2,300 pages of Dodd-Frank.
What if we all stopped trying? The government can't put everyone in jail. Maybe by disobeying enough stupid laws, we can persuade judges that only rules that prevent clear, real harm to individuals should be enforced: "no harm, no foul."
Law is not always the best indication of what is good behavior. Riots in places such as Ferguson and Baltimore remind us that even cops sometimes behave badly.
No one wants to see law break down so completely that people get hurt, but historian Thaddeus Russell reminds us that many freedoms we take for granted exist not because the government graciously granted liberties to us but because of lawbreakers.
Bootleggers, "robber barons" who did things like transporting ferry passengers in defiance of state-granted monopolies and tea-dumping American revolutionaries ignored laws they opposed. Sometimes these scofflaws loved liberty more than our revered Founders did. George Washington led troops against whiskey makers to enforce taxes.
More recently, Uber decided it would ignore some cab regulations. It's good that they did because Uber usually offers better and safer service. Today, Uber is probably too popular for government to stamp out.
Edward Snowden knew the legal consequences he'd face for revealing NSA spying on American citizens but did it anyway. I'm not yet sure if he did the right thing, but conservatives and leftists alike should admit that sometimes laws ought to be bent or broken.
Instead, each political party defends civil disobedience unless the people doing it are people that faction doesn't like. The right loves ranchers who resist federal land managers but doesn't like people who flout immigration laws. The left likes pot smokers but whines about corporations ignoring ridiculously complicated environmental regulations.
Maybe most of these laws should be ignored by most of us.
Politicians themselves don't always play by the rules. My last column was about how the Clintons get away with breaking rules. But I made a mistake that I must correct: I said the Clinton Foundation donated only 9 percent of its money to charity. Sorry, that was wrong. The Clintons and their flunkies were worse than that.
In 2013, the Foundation collected $144 million but spent only $8.8 million on charity. That's only 6 percent.
When Bill and Hillary say they want to "help people," they're talking about themselves. I don't want to be forced to obey such people.
how do the rich avoid taxes?...
It will take DELIBERATE disobedience to bring about change. Disobedience is rampant but most of it is simply unknowing and even UNNOTICED due to the fact that, as the article says, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be a law abiding citizen now. NO one, not even the lawyers, can understand the law, maybe I should say ESPECIALLY the lawyers, it is after all the lawyers and judges who make a living attempting to abide by laws that most non lawyers who have a shred of common sense know are violations of the constitution. When most of the laws are unconstitutional it is the government which in truth is the criminal element and that is the situation in America today.
Unconstitutional laws do not become constitutional simply because a judge in any court, including the supreme court, PRETENDS to believe they are constitutional. Yes, I believe much of it is pretense, I don’t think that they are really that stupid. The tortured and twisted logic that is resorted to in an attempt to justify the absurdly named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes it impossible for me to think that any judge really believes that it is constitutional.
Here in Virginia we are bombarded with stories about the “problem” of those “criminals” buying cigarettes in VA and selling them in New York.
I think they’re heroes.
Yep.
And the cigarette retailers have signs posted “Limit of 20 Cartons per day”
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against... We’re after power and we mean it... There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Most of the wealthy people in this country pay either income taxes or capital gains taxes, or both.
The Left tries to convince people that the wealthy don’t pay taxes. They ignore the fact that the top 5% of wage earners in the US pay almost SIXTY PERCENT of all collected income taxes.
It is the LEFT that doesn’t ‘pay their fair share’...
Mass civil disobedience is a dream come true to the Uniparty. What better way to “reward your friends and punish your enemies” than through an already clearly defined executive doctrine of selective enforcement?
In Robert Bork’s book “Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline”, he quotes Newt Gingrich as saying “Conservatism is like anarchy with guardrails”.
Anarchy with Guardrails.
The guardrails are the Constitution and the left wants to do everything in their power to undermine and destroy the Constitution.
I’ve never believed in registering guns.
As to your other recommendations, what, exactly, would you have us do?
Personally, I'm working towards going Galt. I don't necessarily suggest NOT paying taxes, but more along the lines of getting away from the need to file. Sacrifice? Absolutely. But again, freedom isn't free. As for the FRN's, my goal has been to get into more bartering.
That's a really bad comparison. You can't equate a family's generational land use dispute with a foreign citizen who is here illegally.
-PJ
Thanks for the reply.
I once tried bartering at a grocery. It didn’t work.
It's taking some doing, and I'm far from being where I want to be, but I'm also a lot less a problem than I used to be. I do quite a bit to be sure I'm not contributing. It's certainly rough, and sometimes downright hassle, but once again, freedom isn't free. Opt out as much as you can, and work towards opting out of the rest over time.
I’m on chapter 9, and expect to finish it today. It must be read to be understood; all reviews, including this one, come up short.
Good advice. I’ll try. Thanks.
A great movie, that.
I read this earlier and saw who had posted it and wondered if I had read it wrong.
Wow Kaslin...what changed?
Thanks for posting.
“Hard to believe that Prohibition WAS constitutional at the time (although arguments could be made that it violated the Bill of Rights).”
Uh, Prohibition was constitutional because it was a Constitutional Amendment, not merely a law.
I’ve noticed something about compliant citizens who live under governments that hate them. Sooner or later, their “reward” for being compliant is either a long hike with minimal supplies, or a trip in a cattle car.
“Rather than embrace the opening act of anarchy with widespread civil disobedience, conservatives ought first to have recourse to Article V.”
Being a student of history, can you Identify some major social changes in this country that came about as the result of learned debate and political discourse rather than disobedience? I’m having a hard time identifying any. The end of prohibition, the end of slavery, desegregation, women’s suffrage, and even the end of the 55 mph speed limit were all the result of disobedience on some level.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.