When over 50% of the people disagree with a law made by government, the term “the law of the land” cannot be applied.
Moreover, when the law involves “stealing” something from individuals in the majority – to give to others – be it wealth, power, or freedom: this is “theft”, and is therefore, illegal and unconstitutional.
Good intent, is arbitrary, and laws can be changed, but freedom of the individual (providing it is exercised within accepted moral boundaries) must always remain paramount!
All government legislation, when it’s passed “solely” on the grounds of a political ideology, and not taking into consideration the interest of the majority, which means most law’s made ignore the individuals human right to pursue happiness and freedom, Well, this is clearly wrong and is, in too many cases, an abuse of power.
When I support the concerns and views of the majority, I am not promoting “the rule of the mob”, but I am condoning the “over-use and abuse of executive power” by our supposed “servants” in government!
Laws are needed to protect us, at the base level, they are – or should be – created to ensure that our human rights and individual freedoms are not stolen.
Therefore, when laws are created which facilitate “theft” from us “as individuals”, these laws – albeit made with “good intent” – cannot be “constitutional” or wholly respected as “the law of the land”, simply because they inevitably infringe on a lot of peoples basic human rights of freedom and liberty.
All people have a right to have food, water, and shelter, but they do NOT have a right to make someone else pay for it!
All people have the right to work, but they do not have the right to FORCE me to employ them. Moreover, they have the right to be paid for their work, but not the right to FORCE me to pay more than I want to pay or for longer than I need them.
For our basic defence and protection, Government have a right to charge me for providing physical security for my family and my nation. However, they do not have a right to charge me to finance their political ideologies and projects, nor to provide support structures to those beyond my nation.
In return, I have no right to live my life based on effort made or wealth owned by others!
of course, I do have the right to be charitable, I do have the right to work with others for “mutual benefit”, and I do have an obligation to act within societies accepted basic moral codes and boundaries.
But these “moral codes” must be based on the non-infringement of the human rights and freedoms of other individuals. i.e. no murder, no physical damage, no theft and no abuse or intimidation.
Governments focus too much on creating laws and guidelines and we have become adjusted to accepting this, but It is not the “law of the land” which creates growth and happiness.
It is the relationships created between people with “shared moral values” which facilitates friendships and encourages commercial activity; with a major emphasis on “shared” rather than government “imposed!”
“Collectivists” who oppose this argument, will immediately use words like “unfair” and “inequality”, which actually have little to do with anything! ( for example, I do not know of a single law against being “unfair”; but there are 100s of laws against theft!)
As I see it, beyond their political claims, “Collectivists” (Socialists or Communists) do not have faith in the “morality of the individual” and whilst they espouse the words freedom and democracy, they do it at the same time as they ask for a government to make more laws, in order to impose their political agendas and to enforce a moral code which suits their vested interests.
The problem with this is that “government imposed” morality, by its very nature, always erodes someone’s personal freedom!
These “Collectivists” will also make the extreme claim that: “if no one paid taxes, many people would suffer and we would have wide-spread anarchy!”.
This argument is flawed, because it ignores the fact that the vast majority of people have – as is generally accepted – higher moral codes than those with strong political agendas.
We, as individuals, are willing to pay taxes to protect our personal liberties and to finance basic security provision.
We, as individuals, want to live in a decent society, and I firmly believe if we did not have governments stealing vast amounts of our wealth – to waste on political projects – most of us would be supportive of our “less-fortunate” because we have decent moral values.
We all want to live in a “decent” society.
Unlike “Collectivists”, Libertarians trust that the vast majority of people will act as responsible human beings, because it is in their own interests!
And it is right to expect that those with good morals will succeed in life, because they will have better relationships and more relationships, than those people whose moral values are questionable.
Also. those with more freedom will succeed, because they have the freedom to do so, and ultimately, it is individual success which permits individuals to be more supportive of others!
This is not a revolutionary, new, or original, way of thinking.
But as the framework of our societies continues to implode, due to an unsustainable creation of laws, – laws which too often have a heavy bias towards fulfilling a “political agendas”, and not the rights and freedoms of the billions of people who ARE our “society” – it is a good time to reiterate the need for our citizens to responsibly protect their most valuable right, the freedom to exist and flourish, without being dictated to or stolen from!
Throughout history our freedoms have be taken from us quickly and violently, and we all hate the idea of colonisation, wars, and slavery.
However, in the 21st Century, guns and threats of violence have been replaced by tyrannical law-making to which we can offer little resistance.
The reason we do not resist such laws is that a group of party faithful will make each law into an argument between right and left wing politics, and through the propaganda media, we will get sucked into this political debate, instead of questioning the actual need of the law.
This is a well rehearsed sales tactic: i.e. you are being encouraged to make a choice between buying red-paint or blue paint, and with the “help” of the sales man, you are so busy deciding which colour you prefer, you actually forget you do not want ANY paint!
Lets see how honest you can be with yourself?
Are you happier to pay a bit more tax, if the government promised to only spend it only on welfare and housing for “British” passport holders, and not on new immigrants from Europe?
Give yourself a second to think about it and decide.
It doesn’t matter about your answer, whatever it was, you just justified for the government to steal more of your income, and spend how it seems fit!
The really honest answer is probably : I work hard for my money and I want to pay less tax so I can better support my own family.
The fact is politicians never give you a proper choice, so you can never make the right decision. They twist words and pose questions which will get your arguing against each other, instead of turning around to them and saying “stop making laws and start removing the ones we have!”
We do not need more laws, we need more morality. And as Politicians are less moral than most citizens, they are not the one’s too decide.
Quite frankly, government is too big, and it needs to be diluted.
I often tell people who support the monolithic EU,
“God, in his infinite wisdom, only made 10-laws. Yet, in 15-years, the EU has managed to make 134,000! … AND THERE IS MORE CRIME TODAY!”
Those who say “its the Law of the Land” miss the point!
Today we have untold 100s of thousands of laws. Many do more damage than good, and everyone (almost) unfairly takes away your personal rights and freedoms!
it has to stop!