As in just about every other culture on the planet, Americans are
raised to respect "authority." They are taught that obedience is a
virtue, and that the measure of whether you're a good person is
whether you're a "law-abiding taxpayer" who "plays by the rules."
Likewise, we're taught that the bad guys are all "criminals" who
"have a problem with authority."
People with brains have a problem with authority. And while being
at odds with "authority" and "the law" does not automatically make
someone a good person, it also doesn't automatically make someone
bad, either. Whether someone respects and honors the individual
rights of other people is what matters. The trouble is, so many
people, including those in the pro-freedom "movement," still have a
desire to receive the approval of authority.
Try asking yourself, or the people you know, "Are you willing to be
a criminal?" Most will vehemently say no. But why? These days, when
politician scribbles are called "laws," what does it mean to be a
"criminal" anyway? All it means is that someone disobeyed any one
of the myriad of arbitrary politician commands and demands. Why
should anyone feel bad about that? (The truth is, by that
definition we're ALL criminals, since the sheer volume of "laws"
makes it impossible to even KNOW all of them, and impossible to
obey them all.)
But shouldn't "laws" against murder and theft be obeyed? Yes and
no. People should refrain from committing theft and murder, but NOT
because there are "laws" against them. Theft and murder are wrong
because they deprive others of their rights, not because some
political windbags sat down and scribbled a "law" about it. In
fact, most thefts and murders that occur today are seen as
necessary, if not good, because those crimes have been declared
"legal" (and are called "taxation" and "war").
So my question for today is, are YOU willing to be a criminal? By
that, I'm not asking if you're willing to commit real crimes--the
kind with victims--because I hope you're not. I'm asking whether
you would ever be willing to do the right thing, even when
"authority" tells you to do the wrong thing. If not, please stop
pretending to be pro-freedom.
With all of the lobbying in favor of or against this or that
legislation, or in favor of or against this or that politician, the
supposedly pro-freedom "movement" is constantly reinforcing the
notion that we need the PERMISSION of tyrants to be free. If we
have unalienable rights, then by definition, we don't NEED any
"law" or any "government" to bless our freedom. If, for example, we
have the RIGHT to say what we think, then we have the right to use
outright force to stop anyone from trying to silence us. If we have
the RIGHT to be armed, then we have the right to shoot any "law-
enforcers" who try to disarm us. If we have the RIGHT to not be
randomly stopped, interrogated, searched, and so on, then we have
the right to forcibly RESIST when the American fascists try to do
those things to us. And the fact that open resistance to tyranny is
"illegal"--as it always has been throughout history--doesn't make a
speck of difference.
Of course, resisting control freaks is often hazardous, and one
must pick his battles carefully. Nonetheless, I ask you all again,
are you ready to be criminals? The way things are going, you will
very soon have to choose between being at odds with "authority" or
being a completely conquered sheep. The megalomaniacs won't give
you another option. So which will it be? Are you capable of doing
the RIGHT thing, even when doing so puts you at odds with
"government," "the law," "the police," and all the other
superstitions which the belief in "authority" spawns?
Larken Rose
LarkenRose.com
