Stand Your Ground Movement and The Looting Of America, Part II: The Protection Racket
By John Longenecker (05/01/06)
As I wrote in Part I, Stand Your Ground Movement Stands Against The Looting Of America, liberals and gun control nuts are tightly bound allies of senseless violence in America and around the world so they can farm crime to yield a crop of dependency on official agencies, including the United Nations. Liberals here and through international bodies seek to disarm people for the purpose of running a protection racket.
Standing your ground is being slandered, but not as much as it is being embraced by America.
Do we need such values as Stand Your Ground to be officially endorsed? Confiscation of property and dissing personal sovereignty can’t happen here? It did, in 2005 in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, and it’s still happening as she has still not returned confiscated weapons according to court order. This is one of the greatest fears of liberty enthusiasts, and now others whose attention it is attracting: utter official defiance of law without penalty. Anyone who was against Clinton for defiance of the law could also be against Nixon for that same defiance. It’s not a party thing. It’s a citizen thing.
Lots of people defy the law, but when officials defy the law, it’s not only abandoning one’s oath of office, it’s one of the fears we fear most in a sovereign country, because it means they, as individuals, do not respect American sovereignty. It gets a lot worse when they have all the force.
[As I wrote in Part I, there are two lawful bodies of force in America: the force we assign to officials to enforce the laws we write – our giving them the authority and the tools to do the job – and the force we reserve for ourselves, the older of the two, the force to back the sovereignty that is ours by declaration of the nation. The move to make it all one-sided for officials is well underway.]
It’s important to understand something here: the authority to use force is granted to officials by the People: the authority of individuals to use force is not granted by the Constitution, it is recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution as granted by the judge of all things. (Hence the move to erase God from our nation.) The right is inalienable for citizens. It is not inalienable for official agencies.
Many citizens in 2006 do not fully understand this older lawful force, the force they have the right to before they place any force in the hands of officials. It is a burden to them, and they can rationalize every excuse in the book for declining it and then delegating it. This makes these people support seemingly ‘reasonable’ anti-gun movements, but they might as well be signing over their authority to run their homes the way they want. In fact, that is precisely what they are doing, and the rest of us object, because we cannot opt out of that kind of giveaway.
The net result is a tragically misguided reliance on agencies for protection - and the idea of agencies’ picking up the ball and running with it. It might be alright if it didn’t freeze the citizen out in the process, but it does. It might be alright if it were a synergy of officials and civilian control, but it’s not.
As anti-gun movements make their way across America, they exclude the citizen in the process. This makes all anti-gun movement anti-liberty movements, because it robs the citizen of his/her rightful authority: sovereignty. It’s not simply one alternative from among many choices, but an absolute elimination of options. [In one state, you have to leave your home if an intruder enters. The right to defend yourself was surrendered to legislators. Getting it back would take a Stand Your Ground bill in legislature.]
But in the final analysis, it’s not about guns: it’s about transferring away your authority to officials and their agencies, authority that rightfully belongs to each of us. This wipes out rights for both the pro-liberty and the anti-liberty voters.
It’s not about guns: it’s about how you will parent. Your child can be bullied at school and zero-tolerance policies blame both bully and victim alike, allowing no wiggle-room for discovery of who started what so that your child’s academic and criminal record can be held hostage in an indifferent system which promised you a solution to the problem of bullying, remember? It was a trap like so many anti-crime policies are.
It’s not about guns: it’s about characterizing your reasonable response to aggression even without a gun as one of being in anger or with excessive force, the perfect example of how crime is farmed to grow a crop of dependency on agencies. When you’re alone and aggression strikes, why are you penalized (mischaracterized) for resisting? Why are you even questioned morally? Why are you asked to understand the criminal? Another trap.
It’s not about guns: it’s about discouraging your resistance to stupid ideas on a hundred different fronts. It’s about surrender. Conflict is wrong, another trap for our school children.
You see, officials take prestige in being the go-to people. There are those who enter public service to help, to make a difference. And there are those who enter public service to be needed, a morbid motivation. [You want to be needed? Stay together as parents. Be a good Dad or Mom.] These morbidly motivated are the stubborn officials, the ones who don’t listen to constituents and who want us to listen to them. These are the officials who have it backwards. They’re in every facet of public service.
Among the right-minded officials, there are those who sell us out in the name of getting along with their colleagues. (Some priority, huh?) Case after case, they wind up looking like fools, used for their good-heartedness just as much as the electorate is used for its good-heartedness.The result is that constituents who take a stand against this looting of America are portrayed as racist, ignorant, survivalist, militia. (Only, the militia aren’t interested in taking your rights or your weapons or your authority to run your home your way; they’re interested in protecting your rights and your means of defending them.)
Militia are disliked because they summon people to their duty, the people who feel their own self-defense as a burden.
Don’t forget that your sovereignty is protected by force. Lawful, inalienable force. Nobody else is going to do it for you, whether you assign it to them or not.
This is the lesson of New Orleans. Not only is it most clear by now that the government cannot protect you, it is also clear that it was they who come to take away your weapons to worsen conditions so they can do what: get you to depend on them further and further. (This after stopping rescue assets at the state line.)
But there’s something ruinously wrong with that picture of dependency on agencies: for the trillions spent on this or that War On Crime or Drugs - depending on them - nothing has worked. Why not?
Because that is not where crime is fought.
Crime is not fought by surrendering more and more personal sovereignty to go-nowhere anti-crime agencies – crime is fought instance by instance by individuals who face grave danger with resolve not to be a victim and with superior force.
This is one of the best kept and most maligned secrets in American history.
This makes reliance on agencies a racket.
I said it wouldn’t be so bad if there were a civilian controlled synergy, but the result is exclusive reliance on agencies to the exclusion of civilian participation.
Being forced to rely on agencies as a substitute for your own self-defense is a crime against sovereignty, the core value in America.
We’re not talking about questioning the validity of income taxes or some other crackpot protest; we’re talking about simply instructing officials under our due process to officially recognize our authority and to act as executives in helping us stand our ground.
That would be good for politicians’ careers. It would be good for constituents.
It would be good for the country.
Copyright 2006, John Longenecker.
John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth.
(Printer friendly version) Email: John Longenecker
