In response to Rob Morse’s commentary recently on how to defeat evil (see here), there was one comment that struck a chord:

Douglas Edward Evans: “I took a solemn oath to defend the constitution of the United States… and the 4th Amendment clearly states ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.’

“Does that include breaking into my home and threatening me, my family, or my material possessions? Since no one has relieved me of my sworn oath, I highly suggest that you do not break into my house to see first hand if I still consider the US Constitution and my solemn oath to defend it permission to stop you mercilessly. Unlike many cops and most politicians, I take my oath seriously.”

We need to ask ourselves if this makes sense. Not just those of us who have made a promise to “defend the Constitution” but all of us who believe in liberty and believe that we are to love others.

But Mr. Evans’ ideas on the 4th Amendment are not common – after all, isn’t the Bill of Rights supposed to protect us from governments doing these awful things?

Well, yes. But that does not negate our own personal responsibility to secure our own “persons, houses, papers, and effects.”

And it not just governments that have, throughout history, conducted unreasonable searches and seizures. Although we usually refer to “unofficial” acts of this sort as burglary and home invasion and stealing. (And yes, our automobiles, bicycles, motorcycles, boats, and flying machines have the same standing as houses: they are at worst “effects.”)

Since governments (according to the Founding Fathers) exist to protect our rights, that includes protecting those rights of security – even when it is government itself that threatens our security.

Logically, does that not include actions such as denying us what we (not someone else) what we need to secure these things. Including such things as body armor and protection against surveillance, hacking, and phishing!

We can even argue that includes whatever actions we choose to use to protect our property against seizure for not paying taxes. Or are we going too extreme here?

Another way to look at this is to point out the traditional understanding of the 4th Amendment applying only to keeping government from doing these things is an artifact of the ancient and false idea that morality is different for governments than for individuals.

We see this in the old libertarian fable about two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for lunch. And the often-repeated question is when does a majority in a government become moral but a majority in a mob or a protest is not? If your ten nearest neighbors vote to take your home over, how is that different from a majority vote by a “democratically elected” city council to exercise eminent domain and take over your home?

History has shown that governments have always done the things that the 4th Amendment forbids. As far back as the prophet Samuel (circa 1000 BC) people have been warned of that. But individuals have also done these things since time immemorial.

Does it not make sense to understand that the 4th Amendment infers correctly that “we, the people” have to right to take action to secure our persons, houses, papers, and effects with and without government?