Make Me

by Danny Aleksandar

Sometimes the law is wrong. 

Sometimes people agree on issues that they perceive to be beneficial to society, and subsequently form coalitions aimed at pressuring legislators to adopt their causes as law. 

The trouble is, these coalitions do not limit their efforts at establishing government controls over society by the principles of justice and the protection of individual rights, which is the moral basis of American law. 

Think of the Progressive Era Anti-Saloon League, which successfully lobbied for prohibition.

Think of the Equal Rights Amendment advocates, who failed in their bid to create a two-tiered justice system under the guise of a very clever name.

Think of the so-called Moral Majority and Jerry Falwell, who also failed.

All too commonly these coalitions pressure local, state, or federal legislative bodies to enact laws according to their own moral premises, in the name of social justice, or in the name of public safety to dictate the lives of others far beyond the scope of individual rights.  This is how most activists in America today approach “bringing about change” – by turning to lawmakers.

This is the “might makes right” principle as applied to American politics today. 

A primary function of our government is to create and enforce laws.  This power, however, is expressly limited by the Constitution, which exists not to give citizens permission to act, but to keep elected officials in check; telling them when they have permission to legislate. 

Lawmakers should only create laws to protect individual citizens from loss or harm caused by another citizen, group of citizens, or by the government itself.  The government does not exist on behalf of coalitions of citizens to give permission to any one person or group to act, or to favor the “collective rights” of one “protected class” over any other individual or group.  Groups do not have rights; individuals have rights.  As no two people are identical in their consciousness or character, the smallest minority on earth is the individual.

The fact that some individuals may be morally wrong, and some groups may be morally right, is irrelevant.  Study such cases thoroughly and you will discover that the only time a group has morality on their side when in conflict with an individual person is when the group is not in violation of any protected individual right, but the individual is. 

Physical assault, as the most basic example, is agreed upon by the vast majority of society to be worth designating as a crime, and that proportional punishments should be carried out for those convicted.  The moral premise of all laws pertaining to assault is based on an individual’s right to not be harmed physically by another person, not by the size of the majority agreeing upon the ban. 

Our Constitution (when followed) prohibits “might makes right” legislative action because the founders understood that the size of any given coalition behind any given idea is not a rational means for estimating the moral value of the idea.  “Majority” and “minority” are not value judgements.  Therefore, just because a majority votes on something to make it legal or illegal does not necessarily make it moral or immoral. 

And yet, we vote away individual rights frequently in favor of so-called group rights.  In other words, we often side with “might makes right.” 

This worsening dilemma should raise many questions for anyone concerned with America’s future as a free society.

I propose three:  two for intellectual debate, and one for which the answer is a guide to action. 

1.     Why do so many millions of Americans advocate for group rights when the concept has been objectively proven irrational and immoral, and irrespective of the coinciding erosion of individual rights?

2.     How do we determine morality as it relates to civil rights and the law?

3.     What should we do when the law is morally wrong?

Sadly, in America today, and for generations, rights are misunderstood and thus are viewed by many as expendable for the perceived “greater good.”  K-12 public education, colleges, and universities are the reality-free, altruist indoctrination camps which propagate this widespread miseducation of the ethical principles of justice by confusing rights with personal feelings, opinions, desires, security, and entitlements.

A prime example of this miseducation was featured in Psychology Today; a wide-ranging publication with prestigious academic credentials (in other words, the kind of anti-intellectual rag dependent on judgement by cover.)  In a shamelessly elitist blog entitled Is Radical Individualism Destroying Our Moral Compass?  The Dangers of Retreating into Our Own Private Morality, the blogger, Michael Mascolo, Ph.D., argues:

“although rights are essential for the functioning of a free state, they are insufficient as guides to moral action. Beyond the idea that we should respect the rights of others, a rights-based morality tells us little about how we should act toward others or who we ought to be. In a liberal demoracy, such questions - that is, questions about the nature of what is good, worthy, or virtuous - are properly left to the people.”

Here, the author dimly takes the position that an action is moral simply if more people agree to it.  We already know that this is an irrational standard for estimating moral value.

Furthermore, the author builds his entire premise on an objective lie in propagating the ever-popular liberal notion that America is a democracy.  In terms of the American legislative system this is definitively untrue.  The United States of America is a republic; only in the process of our public elections are we democratic.  Our government is a republic because our founders understood that a majority should not be able to democratically vote away the personal rights of any one individual.  Therefore, a republic is essential to the preservation of freedom. 

In a republic, citizens are better able to hold accountable the individual elected legislators for civil rights violations or other failures, as opposed to a wronged citizen attempting to hold accountable the vast majority of voters who stripped them of their rights.  This is the difference between fighting off an individual versus fighting off an entire mob.  With the sole exception of elections, democracy in public affairs is mob rule. 

Americans are already at the point of repeating some of our worst mob rule history, believe it or not.  Review the tragic case of Jake Gardner of Omaha, Nebraska for a very clear picture of where we are and where we are heading as a result of prevailing mob justice.  In Mr. Gardner’s case, his rights to self-defense and the protection of his private property were thrown out by Omaha prosecutors in favor of assailants and vandals.  Why?  Mr. Gardner did not belong to a protected class.  Tragically, he recently committed suicide; never living to see his day in court.  The point of Mr. Gardner’s “white privilege” was used as a weapon against him by the mob-like media in their unanimous prosecution of him and in defense of his assailant (who Gardner killed in clear self-defense); a violent criminal whose alleged oppression afforded him higher placement on the hierarchy of rights in liberal media land.

Morally speaking, no such hierarchy exists.  We are not all equal, but we do all deserve equal protections under the law.  To support a hierarchy of rights in any form is to deny civil rights in all forms. 

Liberals and conservatives alike are guilty of hypocrisy on this front, but post-tea party conservatives have increasingly voted out John McCain-type republicans in favor of Rand Paul-types, who are attractive to today’s republican voters for their consistency on civil rights issues. 

Republicans faced a moral reckoning for the disastrous Bush years, learned from the failure, and clearly have progressed as the party of freedom.  Democrats, on the contrary, have only increased their tribalistic approach to governing the masses and show no signs of reversal.  They are decades behind and will likely self-destruct in the midst of their primitive philosophy before ever finding the courage for meaningful introspection and reinvention. 

Many people today are unaware that they advocate for mob rule, Democrat officials included.  They are ill-educated on what rights actually are and on how our government was intended to operate.   The most essential political concept one needs to understand is that any application of government force against its’ citizens beyond the scope of individual rights protections or national defense is morally unjustifiable government overreach. 

Contrary to the half-baked view presented in the Psychology Today blog, a rights-based morality tells us everything we need to know about how to act in a republic, wherein “the people,” referring to a majority of the citizenry, have no right to inflict their “might makes right” tyranny over any other individual citizen. 

Practically speaking this limits American legislative controls to the empowerment of law courts, police, and other government entities which review where rights violations may have occurred between citizens.  The operative words here are may have.  We have judicial proceedings for this reason.  Due process is a right.    

Did a crime occur?

What specific loss or harm occurred?

What evidence, if any, exists?

Is that loss or harm a right of the plaintiff that outweighs the defendant’s right to act in the manner that brought about the legal dispute? 

Only when the answer to this last question is “yes” should a prosecutor take action and press charges.  Rights cannot outweigh each other, therefore in examining the premises of a legal conflict one can rationally determine which side is protected by a true right, and which side is not protected.  

We do possess, all of us, the right to be irresponsible, unkind, racist, rude, and even unsafe, up to the very point that our behavior can be proved, in court and with evidence, to have infringed upon another person’s rights.  Yet society has largely given up on one very crucial element here; the burden of proof resting with the accuser, be it an individual citizen, group, or government official.

No perceived greater societal benefit, correct or incorrect in its’ idea, could ever morally outweigh any fundamental individual right, including due process.

Our only responsibility to our fellow citizen is respecting their rights. 

This does not mean everyone gets everything they want at all times.  It means we settle our civil disputes without resorting to force, be it person to person force or lobbying for government sanctioned force on our behalf.  It really is that simple.  If a person is harmed, let them prove it by presenting evidence to a court and winning compensatory damages.  Sometimes, those in the right lose their cases in court and are true victims of injustice. No judicial system, however brilliant, is perfect in practice, but the overall record of America’s judicial history is remarkably favorable towards freedom. This is how a moral society strives for justice; in court, with a judge, jury, evidence, and arguments.   

This brings us to the last question:  What should we do when the law is morally wrong?

Simply put, don’t follow it.  Reject the law on grounds of immorality.  Disobey. 

Say, “Make me” to any challengers.  That simple, freedom-minded phrase triggers liberals like nothing else.   

Of course, in rejecting certain unjust laws or regulations you may face backlash and possible penalties. 

So what?

Imagine if Rosa Parks had said to herself, “I might get in trouble.”  The law was not on her side, but morality was, and she won.  She changed history, and she did it most bravely; by use of non-violent resistance, and without the comfort of a multi-million dollar NIKE endorsement.

This is where the challenge gets real; by putting the enforcers of an immoral law, whether they are individuals, a group, or of government authority, in the position of acting as aggressors. 

Civil disobedience is moral when you protest in such a way that you violate no individual’s rights to life, liberty, or property.  If your action breaks the law, and yet no tangible harm against any person, place of business, or entity can be proved in court, then it is the law that is wrong, and morality will be on your side, as will the firmest points of our remarkable Constitution.

Don’t bow before authoritarians without issuing a challenge.  Defend your rights in court.  Seek help for your cause.  There are legal funds available to offer help in these kinds of cases. 

Defenders of civil liberties tend to have more victories than failures in court, where rational arguments and evidence matter.  Advocates for mob rule tend to have more success with the legislature, where aggression and political clout matter.  This is the PRECISE reason why liberals advocate for statism; coercion is how they win. 

People often say our society has too many lawsuits; I say we have too many laws!

Look around at our overly obedient society.  When Big Government says, “Wear a mask!” far too many Americans reply, “How tight?” 

When a barber can lose his license for cutting hair during a widespread health scare (because I believe science, I refuse to call a virus that kills only .05% or less of most infected a pandemic) without the state first being forced to provide specific evidence against said barber, then we have a serious problem in the United States. 

Governor Whitmer of Michigan, overreaching and selective in the application her executive orders of government mandated economic shutdowns, recently received a very public rebuke when she lost on this issue in court thanks to a brave barber who challenged her. 

The people of Michigan have gone further in their rebuke; a new petition limiting Governor Whitmer’s shutdown authority recently surpassed the required number of signatures ahead of the deadline.  Here is an example of a group proving their moral high ground over an individual (who happens to be Governor of Michigan) and reversing government-imposed injustice.

Win some, lose some.  The important thing is to never give up fighting tyranny in all its’ forms. 

What does it say about humanity that so many millions (billions globally) fail to put into practice in their own lives the GOLDEN RULE, which is comprehensible by kindergarten? 

What does it say that more young Americans today reference Angela Davis, whose actions for so-called social justice were evil, than the rarely mentioned Rosa Parks, whose actions in defense of all civil rights were objectively righteous?

It says that freedom lovers must remain vigilant in their fight, always, because this fight will never end.  

I’ll start in my own small way by refusing to wear a mask, inside or outside, on public property. 

Let someone physically try to make me wear a mask; within my rights I will break their hands.

Let them call the police and try to have me arrested; I am prepared for the risk.  The Michigan case provides legal precedent.  I would sue the state and my initial aggressors for false arrest. 

Then they would have to prove in court, with evidence, that I caused them specific harm by not wearing a mask.  They would be unable to prove it.

Imagine if we all took this kind of moral action in defense of our civil liberties.

Perhaps if liberals, America’s primary legislative aggressors, felt the unyielding pain of increased legal fees and potential damages paid out to civil rights defenders, they might begin to back off.  

You might never convince them of the morality of individual rights, but I guarantee you that despite their social pretenses, liberals love money more than their alleged principles. 

COPYRIGHT 2020 DEFINING RIGHTS MEDIA LLC