"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable." ~ H.L. Mencken
Respect for the Law
Column by Paul Hein.
Exclusive to STR
If you have any--that is, respect for the law--you ought to reconsider. We are controlled, after all, by psychology, and the “law” is a key player in the ploy.
There is a division of the company called the State that writes down, solemnly, the desires of the company, and calls the finished product The Law. We are supposed to take this law very seriously, indeed, as seriously as a prior age took the Deity; and never, never, take it into our own hands, meaning, I guess, to interpret it ourselves, or disregard it if it seems foolish or harmful. However, since the authors of the law claim to represent us, and act in and for our behalf, we would seem to be exactly the people to take the law into our hands, examine it, and give it whatever respect it deserves.
If the Rulers decide they want our money, they ask their legislative division to write down that desire in formal, rather stilted and often confusing, language. A new law! The sad fact is that the victims of this law not only hand over “their” money to the Rulers, but dispense harsh criticism upon any of their peers who attempt to resist this predation. Being “law-abiding” is thought by some to be akin to virtue, although abiding by the law simply means abiding by the wishes of the Rulers. The slaves on the plantation were “law-abiding.”
Thus, the law is a tool of the Rulers, who use it to further their ambitions and programs. And, like any tool, it can be used in various ways. A hammer, for instance, is usually used for driving nails into wood, but can also be used to withdraw them. And so it is with the law: do not expect consistency in its application.
An example of this is currently quite obvious. All of our Rulers have raised their hands on assuming office and sworn adherence to a Constitution, either federal or state. And the federal document states in its Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Now that is the law--indeed, the Supreme Law--of this land, and you would think the matter settled by those who have sworn to uphold it. Yet throughout most of the country, the right to keep and bear arms is regularly infringed, and the Rulers seem determined to infringe it still more. Even those who oppose this clearly unlawful plan of the Rulers will rarely, if ever, admit that the purpose of the Amendment—to which they swore allegiance, remember—is to give people a means of protecting themselves from the Rulers. Why do you think the Redcoats marched on Lexington? And why were they resisted? Because they didn’t want the colonists to hunt? Yet, amazingly, some of the Rulers claim that the right recognized by the Second Amendment shouldn’t be interpreted to mean a right to own military-type guns, but only guns for hunting. So much for the Supreme Law! At any given time, it means only what the Rulers want it to mean.
Another example from the Constitution is found in Article 1, Sec. 10: “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts. . . .” When was the last time you heard one of the Rulers--despite his oath of office--demand adherence to this section of the Supreme Law? Oh, they wring their hands about the dangers of inflation, and warn of the fiscal cliff ahead, but the profits to be made--at least in the short haul--from fiat currency and bank credit are too great to permit any thought of return to lawful money.
It can be amusing to confront the State with its disregard for its own laws. I recently asked one of the state’s attorneys about the property tax. Was it legal for the assessor to evaluate property in Missouri in anything other than legal tender in the state--especially if any other evaluation was objected to? At RsMo 408.010 that tender is described: “the silver coins of the United States.” Nothing else is listed as a legal tender in the state. The state’s lawyer admitted, of course, that 408.010 gave the silver coins of the U.S. legal tender status, but then opined that the statute didn’t say that other things couldn’t be a legal tender, too. See how remarkable the law is? The lawmakers, evidently of the opinion, according to the state’s attorney, that various things could be a legal tender in Missouri, nonetheless specified ONLY the silver coins of the United States as having that status. Perfectly logical—if you are a lawyer defending an indefensible position. I replied, asking if, because the drinking age in Missouri was 21, there could be other drinking ages as well; or, since the speed limit on many of the state’s roads is 70 MPH, there might be other speed limits also. For that matter, although the bluebird is the state bird, couldn’t there be other state birds? I didn’t get an answer and don’t expect one.
A friend, Mrs. X, was dragged before the Administrative Hearing Commission of the State of Missouri to explain why she allegedly hadn’t reported income. The lawyer for the state informed Mrs. X, in writing, on several occasions, that the state had received information from the IRS that she had, indeed, received income from various sources. (Of course, there is no definition of “income” in either federal or state tax statutes. Oh, well.) We did a little research, and found, at 26 USC 6103 (d) that disclosure from the IRS to a state tax agency may be made only upon “written request” of the head of that agency. So Mrs. X filed a motion for discovery, demanding to see a copy of the written request. In response, the state’s lawyer--the same one who had said information had been received from the IRS--replied that there had been “no communication” with that agency. Well, as I’ve said, don’t expect consistency. Mrs. X, in a request for admissions, asked the Department of Revenue to admit that no written request had been made to the IRS. The department’s reply was, “Respondent denies this Request for Admission.” Neat and tidy, isn’t it? Of course, the “Commissioner” in charge of the proceedings was a state employee, so no eyebrows were raised--except mine and Mrs. X’s! Could Mrs. X have replied to a demand for her personal financial data, “We deny this Request for Information”? Yet the minions of the state claim that their authority is via delegation from the people, who, somehow, manage to delegate an authority they don’t have.
Respect for the law? Hardly, although if the “law” weren’t a device manipulated by the Rulers for their own advantage, it might be reasonable. Better respect for the mugger’s pistol than the state’s “laws”! At least he doesn’t compound the offense by claiming some self-invented justification for his thievery.