8 votes

Separation of Gun and Gavel

We are all familiar with the concept of “separation of church and state,” which attempts to secure religious liberty by separating organized religion from the state. I would like to propose that, in order to secure justice and liberty, what we really need is the separation of gun and gavel. The gun is a universal symbol of force and is often used to represent the law enforcement power of the state. The gavel, in turn, is often used as a symbol of the judiciary, especially in the United States.

Wait a second, you may say, don’t we already have separation of the executive and judicial branches in our form of government? Isn’t this the very essence of our system of checks and balances? That’s what they taught us in school. The Supreme Court often reigns in the Congress, for example, by declaring a law unconstitutional.

Not so fast. For starters, the Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court are all part of the same organization, the United States federal government. And, to sit on the Supreme Court, you have to be nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress. Thus, the President and the Congress are the gatekeepers, and you don’t get through the door without their approval. If someone is opposed to the war on drugs, for example, what do you think the chances are of that person being nominated? Absolutely zero. You won’t even make it as a local judge. Read the story of Marc. J Victor for an example.

Furthermore, where does a judge get his or her paycheck? Judges are not self-financed through court fees. They are employees of the State. Do you think they will take a stand against their employer? They are part of the State and naturally identify themselves as part of the State. To take a stand against the State would be, for them, to take a stand against themselves.

With that in mind, how can there be any true justice if the accused is also the judge? Imagine a conflict with a friend. Let’s say you want to know who the better cook is and agree to a cooking contest. Well, how would you feel if your friend asserts that he should be the judge of the cooking contest? Yet this is exactly the case when someone has a grievance with the government. In cases in which the government is the accused, the government gets to be the judge. How do you think that will go? I don’t know that anyone has ever attempted to compute the fraction of cases in which the government has ruled against itself, but I would bet that it’s a negligible amount.

If you have the power to field force, if you have the power of the gun, you will be tempted to use it. That is your function, after all. All entities want to express their function. Thus, there must be a check on this power, lest it run over everything. There must be interpretations on the proper use of this power. Yet these checks, these interpretations on the use of the gun, cannot come from the gun. The gun always thinks it’s time to shoot.

Thus, he who enforces the law cannot also be the one that interprets the law.

He who enforces the law also cannot be the one that selects who will interpret the law.

The gavel must be separate from the gun.

In a free society, I imagine that a protection agency would be separate from a judicial agency. The judicial agency, being financially independent of the protection agency, and having judges that were not selected by the protection agency, would be able to act in an impartial manner in suits brought against the protection agency. I imagine that a watchdog agency may arise to certify such independence. I imagine multiple judicial agencies that would keep checks on each other. After all, if a suit were brought against judicial agency A, judicial agency B would need to sit in judgment, since judicial agency A could not sit in judgment of itself. Judges would be subject to ratings and customer satisfaction. Independent rating agencies may arise to rate judges.

I imagine that over time a strong ethic would arise to favor the separation of gun and gavel. Hopefully, with such a strong ethic in place, if a gun started acting as its own gavel, alarm bells would go of at the beginning stages. The gun would start losing customers, and thus income, and competing protecting agencies, holding to the ethic, would keep it in check and protect the citizenry from its abuses. So once we got there, I imagine we would be in a self-regulating stable situation. However, how to get there is a different story.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

here we go again

Get ready for another decision in which the government judges will rule in favor of the government:

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_fro...

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

agreed

back in the day, whence honor and integrity were the norms adhered to
by society, the system worked well.+/-
now modern culture with a secular humanist manifesto as a compass,
mans ability to be a fixed agent is anchored on a gelatinous
foundation wherein truth becomes treason in an empire of lies (RP)
me guess the odds are better in Vegas than in a superior court

bump for more comments

I would like to hear some critiques of this. Anyone, except for BILL3. BIll2, you still out there?

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Cyril's picture

It's a good post, IMO. My comments were only my .02 complement.

It's a good post, IMO. My comments were only my .02 complement.

Who's Bill2?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

thank you, Cyril

A compliment from Cyril means much to me.

Indeed, who is BILL2?

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Cyril's picture

Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges

Please don't miss to keep this in sight, also :

"Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges"

The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.

- Tacitus

Then ask yourself :

how come your Bill of Rights was devised and written so concisely?

Was it by a freaking improbable coincidence?

Well, I'd beg to venture : no, it wasn't.

Not at all, my friends.

But, now you know why the socialists taking over your country absolutely looooove to invent always many more "laws", defining always many more societal "rights", and ways to coerce you into reckoning them, by surrendering on your only few, natural ones - you know, for your own good.

And, no offense, but here,

I am fucking sick and tired of people not getting "it"... just as it is, as it has been diagnosed, and stated, and warned against, for fucking centuries - way before your founders (wisely) acknowledge it, and act accordingly.

And after them, even, Frédéric Bastiat kept on warning against the exact same woes coming from the proliferation of the Law Perverted :

http://www.dailypaul.com/314556

For liberty's sake.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

someone has to interpret the Bill of Rights

And when the government is doing the interpreting, they can interpret it any way they want.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Cyril's picture

It's up to the people to not neglect its usage

It's up to the people to not neglect its usage, and it's nothing american-specific, I think.

Such neglect comes in at least two flavors as far as can see :

1) to surrender on exercising those rights that the Bill intended to protect against Congress abuses ("... shall not...")

2) to abandon the interpretation of the law of the land to a self-appointed cast of lawyers and law makers getting its exclusivity, and corrupting the law as they see fit.

Both forms of neglect also propped up by the betrayal against the language that the latter insidiously distillate by their newspeak for the law itself, legacy or new :

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

I'd venture the Bill of Rights was purposely written, and still is, so that any american teenager can understand full well its meaning, provided it is read literally.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

A more accurate verb may be ignore, not interpret

FWIW

Cyril's picture

They say people are smarter, more knowledgeable, in the 21st

They say (sometimes) that people are smarter, more knowledgeable, in the 21st century, with all this abundance or science, technology, and nanny state, around us.

Well, bear with me,

I beg to differ, with the data points we got from the 20th century (and ongoing).

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Smarter

does not mean wiser

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Cyril's picture

True. Granted.

True. Granted.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

The separation of powers

is the cornerstone legitimacy for any proposed authority. I think you have outlined a necessary reform.