Either Self Defense Is Consistent With Liberty Or It Is NotSubmitted by His American Majesty on Fri, 06/13/2014 - 07:14
I can barely tolerate the hypocrisy surrounding self defense anymore. I do not stand with any of you people who say, it is not all that bad because you are living cozy little lives. Some people are oppressed. Some people are being looted, raped, plundered, caged, and killed by government actors. I stand with them.
I do not stand with people who would say oppressed people should not exercise self defense against their oppressors. If the Chinese army invaded the United States who would say something absurd like some of those soldiers are good people and just because they are armed, wearing the uniform, and bearing insignia of the enemy they ought not be shot in self defense? No one would say that.
Cops make a choice to put on the uniform of a known enemy. They choose an occupation to enforce unjust laws and victimless crimes. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If ignorance of the law will not excuse you or I it will not excuse them. Abusing discretion and jurisdictional excesses are matters of policy in the name of officer safety. The courts have carved out a special little exception for police officers. Their safety is more important than anyone else.
The enjoyment of life and pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. The reason anytime a state legislature passes any statute that regulates ALL acquisition, ALL possession, or ALL uses and it is held as unconstitutional is because since the Declaration of Independence some rights are inalienable which means government can not regulate ALL acquisition, ALL possession, and ALL uses. If you acquire, possess, or use a gun for self defense it is an inalienable right excluded from government regulation. If you acquire, possess, or use anything to enjoy life or pursue happiness it is excluded from government regulation. Government taxes guns because it claims it can tax any thing but it can not regulate acquisition, possession, or use for any purpose of self defense since that is an inalienable right.
This is the reason when one analyzes every single code or statute the key is always acquisition, possession, or use. Driving and motor vehicles are a use to transport persons and property. It is a for hire, commercial use separate of any use to enjoy life or pursue happiness. Occupational regulation is using a person created in an act of birth registration to derive a private gain or profit. It is a for hire business use. Aviation is a use to transport persons and property. Again, a for hire business use to derive a private gain or profit. Marriage is a use to solemnize. A commercial use to enter into a contract governing a legal union comprising things like joint property, children titles, financial obligations, etc. Marriage licensing regulates the business of marriage which is distinguished from any inalienable right to enjoy life or pursue happiness selecting ones partner. Legal dictionaries may as well be called business dictionaries because everything outside of criminal statutes are commercial in nature. Even civil torts are commercial in nature because ones personal reputation which is valuable has been made less valuable and thereby damaged.
The entire legal system is based on some absurd presumption that we are all just economic units 24/7/365. It is presumed that everything we do is to derive a private gain or profit because the only thing we give a crap about is money. Since reputations are valuable every time we self identify as a person it is to gain or profit. Since we are operating as entities to derive a gain or profit 24/7/365 all of the statutes and codes which are commercial in nature apply to us 24/7/365 since no one is apparently ever merely acting solely to enjoy life or pursue happiness.
If enforcement does not derive from a use the next major category is taxation. Property is taxed and confiscated when taxes are not paid. If you read court opinions when drugs are mentioned they are referred to as unstamped or untaxed commodities. It is outrageous because one can not get a tax stamp for property confiscated as an unstamped or untaxed commodity.
Cops have taken an oath to uphold constitutions. Police departments have clearly demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that when enforcing all these revenue codes and statues regulating business activities no discretion will be exercised or any consideration given to uses enjoying life or pursuing happiness. This is what makes them the enemy. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. When patterns of abuse have become so widespread and common it can not be said self defense is not justified because some members of the Chinese army may be good people. If they are good people they ought not put on a uniform and take up arms to oppress in ignorance. Good people work to alleviate their own ignorance. I reject categorically any argument choosing to remain in a state of ignorance is good. Any enforcement policy that does not distinguish between acquisition, possession, or uses to enjoy and defend life and property, and to pursue happiness is inexcusably ignorant.
I also have a few bones to pick with other arguments set forth by so called liberty advocates. Have liberty advocates in large numbers geographically organized to create any sanctuary city oppressed people can find safe harbor in? No they have not because they are too comfortable where they are at. Have liberty advocates in large numbers created any organizations to help oppressed people find sanctuary, aid, or relief? No they have not. Have liberty advocates in large numbers come to the aid of oppressed people in their need of self defense? No they have not. Have liberty advocates in large numbers drafted a new Declaration of Independence articulating the mile long list of government wrongdoing which has occurred or now exists that will not be tolerated? No they have not.
Advocacy and voting is not enough when people are oppressed by an unjust government which manufactures consent. It is outrageous for people to criticize any oppressed who exercise self defense or retaliate against oppressors when they do nothing beyond advocacy and voting. If not now when? That is what I want to know because none of the critics can say when it is ok. Their only answer is when they come for me and that is bullshit. If you are going to criticize oppressed people for retaliating or exercising self defense you have a duty and obligation to at a bare minimum, set forth a declaration of government wrongdoing that will no longer be tolerated because as it stands right now every single government act of tyranny is and will continue to be tolerated by you. If you aren't going to do that you at least have a duty to eliminate known contradictions in the form of a mile long list of government abuses by providing some solid data to illustrate police enforcing unjust laws and victimless crime without exercising any discretion for inalienable rights are not in fact the enemy.
I see a bunch of people complaining about tyranny but I do not see much courage in the liberty movement. There is nothing courageous about pulling a lever every couple years and a little advocacy while submitting to every act of tyranny. Those things are easy. It is things that are hard which require courage. What is the difference between Nazi Germany killing Jews in gas chambers versus the United States killing undesirables by attrition? The only difference is form. No empire in human history has indebted unborn to the extent of the United States. Are you going to tell me it would be wrong for any unborn that has been indebted to indentured servitude without their consent to start killing government actors the moment they are capable? Yes, the lousy hypocrites who have a problem with the oppressed retaliating against cops would condemn the unborn for killing people who have indebted them to indentured servitude without their consent.
So hypocrites, if not now ... when is self defense against tyranny justified?