"In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom." ~ Braveheart
There Oughtta Be a Law!
Uh, please spare me. We have hundreds of thousands too many already.
I haven't been to Newsmax.com for some time, because it is like the online version of FOX NEWS on the lobotomy box--and both produce the precise equivalent to what occurs to my central nervous system when fingernails are scratched across a chalkboard.
But today I gave in. As I scrolled down, I came across an article by Al Rantel, a radio talk show host on KABC in Los Angeles, entitled "Laws Be Damned." For a fleeting moment I felt the surge of hope that maybe a crack was developing in the gung-ho Newsmax approval of government (albeit of the Republican variety). But upon reading the first paragraph, those hopes were dashed.
His two primary concerns were: the recent outbreak of gay marriages in San Francisco, and the illegal immigration problem, and how both were threats to those Americans who live in a country founded upon the law, and who were law-abiding themselves.
My first "quibble" with his article is that America was not founded upon the Law, but upon respect for the personal freedoms of individuals to live their lives in peace FROM governing authorities. Considering the myriads of laws at the federal, state and local level in this country, 'law" has one thing in common. Rather than guaranteeing "freedom" as is so piously pronounced by every candidate running for office, "law" as devised by government is a restriction on freedom. I cringe when I hear politicians talk about "doing the business of the people." Hardly! They are just creating ever more laws and further restricting freedom with each new law passed.
How laws get us in trouble as a society, or as individuals, is what his article ironically shows. If two men wish to be "married" . . . what of it? That the State pretends, to begin with, it has an authority to restrict the most personal agreement two human beings choose to make--is the first problem with the law. I don't personally have the first desire toward a same-sex union whatsoever. But first using to State to create laws to govern marriage (and collect sizeable amounts of money in fees, too), is to use the government to restrict freedom, not guarantee it as was the original intent. Because some are ignoring laws that should never have existed, we should now create even more laws that should not exist?
As to "illegal" immigration" . . . several points. One, it is only illegal because of the laws that restrict their freedom of movement. Which, two, then immediately opens the can of worms regarding "citizenship" and "protecting America"--but as Rantel's logic proceeds to show, those shibboleths are based upon the "rule of law," and a devotion to government as the arbiter of what is right and wrong. In essence, and reducing what is at stake to its most basic form, Rantel advocates government dictating to a supposedly "free" society . . .
With whom one lives, and where one lives.
Inescapable facts. And law has a snowball effect--once folks get the idea that they can force their neighbors into doing things their way by use of government, well, it is pretty clear why our legal system is in a shambles, while every individual (especially the "law-abiders") is forced (by LAW--how about that?), to financially feed the insatiable beast that government at all levels has become.
But what got me most--was one paragraph in which Rantel stumbled upon the true treasure, but like one not trained to see diamonds in the rough, missed the true worth of the treasure . . . he wrote:
What will happen to our society when people begin to ask what law they can break that they don't like? What will happen to our society when it finally becomes clear to law abiding citizens that those who do not obey the laws are not only not worse off than they, but in some ways are better off?
Well, Mr. Rantel, in all honesty, the only logical answer would be that what is IN THE WAY is "law" per the state, and that perhaps those law-abiding citizens will realize that others who are ignoring the law and living better than they, have found the better way to a better "society."
"But that will result in ANARCHY!" you might reply.