“When a legislature decides to steal some of our rights and plans to use police force to accomplish it, what’s the real difference between them and the thief? Darn little! They hide behind the excuse that they’re legislating democratically. The fact they do it by a majority vote has no moral significance whatsoever. Numerical might does not constitute right, no more than a lynch mob can justify its act because a majority participated.” — Hubert Leon “Bill” Richardson, California state senator (1966-1988), author, Founder and Chairman of Gun Owners of America, writing in December 1995.
A republican form of government with democratic principles must be held in check by the natural, God-given rights of the individual citizens. Morally, no majority can vote away the rights of others — that is absolutely contrary to the fundamental concept of human liberty. And to the charter which established the government of a free people.
We might quibble with Mr. Richardson’s “darn little.” We can see no difference, morally, between the free-lance thief, with or without mask and weapons, and the government official and agent, boasting of their high ideals and service, urging us to vote again for them and their ilk.
Some philosophers might point out that the common sneak-thief or even hold-up artist is less morally repugnant than the advocate and official of democracy. The thief and hold-up artist are only interested in material things. Oh, there are a few who lust for humilitation, blood, for beating and even killing, but most are satisfied with your money, your phone, your jewelry, and perhaps your shoes and jacket or coat.
On the other hand, the politician, the political activist, the government bureaucrat, and the cop want more: they want your physical possessions, true. But they want your rights, your freedoms, your dignity, and your honor. They may not admit it. They may claim exactly the opposite. But at the root is lust for power, not just for wealth. As we’lve pointed out recently, they are parasites. Even more than the thief or the burglar, they cannot be satisfied with a little bit: they want it all.
A second difference? The thief, the pickpocket, the street gangster, are content to (or at least unable to do more than) hold up and steal from a few people. For every victim, there at a lot of people who (of necessity) are not victims. But democratic government? Armed with the claimed privilege of being elected to office, they seek to steal from everyone. From every business, every home, every vendor. Oh, their financial supporters don’t have to give up as much: even after their campaign donations and big parties, they still have to give up some more money, some more freedom, some more opportunity.
Which points out an obvious, historical fact: theft (and other crimes) are far more common and harmful when the public-sector and the private-sector criminals are organized and in cahoots with each other.
We will always have crime with us: theft, assault, intimidation, and more. But having both government and private sector groups and individuals working together to rob you and me? Far, far worse. So a question for a lover of liberty to ponder and answer? Which is easier to get rid of?
About TPOL Nathan
Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
The Price of Liberty 
Rights, theft, and democracy
“When a legislature decides to steal some of our rights and plans to use police force to accomplish it, what’s the real difference between them and the thief? Darn little! They hide behind the excuse that they’re legislating democratically. The fact they do it by a majority vote has no moral significance whatsoever. Numerical might does not constitute right, no more than a lynch mob can justify its act because a majority participated.” — Hubert Leon “Bill” Richardson, California state senator (1966-1988), author, Founder and Chairman of Gun Owners of America, writing in December 1995.
A republican form of government with democratic principles must be held in check by the natural, God-given rights of the individual citizens. Morally, no majority can vote away the rights of others — that is absolutely contrary to the fundamental concept of human liberty. And to the charter which established the government of a free people.
We might quibble with Mr. Richardson’s “darn little.” We can see no difference, morally, between the free-lance thief, with or without mask and weapons, and the government official and agent, boasting of their high ideals and service, urging us to vote again for them and their ilk.
Some philosophers might point out that the common sneak-thief or even hold-up artist is less morally repugnant than the advocate and official of democracy. The thief and hold-up artist are only interested in material things. Oh, there are a few who lust for humilitation, blood, for beating and even killing, but most are satisfied with your money, your phone, your jewelry, and perhaps your shoes and jacket or coat.
On the other hand, the politician, the political activist, the government bureaucrat, and the cop want more: they want your physical possessions, true. But they want your rights, your freedoms, your dignity, and your honor. They may not admit it. They may claim exactly the opposite. But at the root is lust for power, not just for wealth. As we’lve pointed out recently, they are parasites. Even more than the thief or the burglar, they cannot be satisfied with a little bit: they want it all.
A second difference? The thief, the pickpocket, the street gangster, are content to (or at least unable to do more than) hold up and steal from a few people. For every victim, there at a lot of people who (of necessity) are not victims. But democratic government? Armed with the claimed privilege of being elected to office, they seek to steal from everyone. From every business, every home, every vendor. Oh, their financial supporters don’t have to give up as much: even after their campaign donations and big parties, they still have to give up some more money, some more freedom, some more opportunity.
Which points out an obvious, historical fact: theft (and other crimes) are far more common and harmful when the public-sector and the private-sector criminals are organized and in cahoots with each other.
We will always have crime with us: theft, assault, intimidation, and more. But having both government and private sector groups and individuals working together to rob you and me? Far, far worse. So a question for a lover of liberty to ponder and answer? Which is easier to get rid of?
Share this:
About TPOL Nathan
Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.