I wonder what percentage of people just do what a cop tells them, even when the cop is clearly wrong like in this situation. Thank God the guy had a video camera going.
We need people to start standing up to these power-tripping, tinpot tyrants.
Might Makes Right, Right?
Might does not make right. The only possible source for moral authority for government comes from it acknowledging and submitting to Christ as King and Lord. But as this country has rejected Christ, its only claim to authority comes from the barrel of a gun–from threatening violence against those who don’t obey.
Sadly, even reformed Christians are taking part in this. Below is a conversation on a Facebook group of reformed Christians. I wonder what it’s like to enforce the unjust, unconstitutional laws of a nation under God’s judgment. The following comes from a friendly conversation where a guy asked the group what tool people use most often at their job. A lot of people named various tools and testing equipment or computers. A lot of pastors said they use the Bible most. Out of a couple hundred responses I saw two cops say they used their gun most.
Here’s the rest of that conversation.
The founding fathers declared their independence because the standing army the king placed in the colonies. But we just put up with people like Andrew being willing to kill those who might run a stop sign, smoke in a public place or not pay their taxes.
Are There Really Pro Second Amendment Cops?
Bojidar Marinov says:
Folks, don’t make foolish mistakes. If you think that a sheriff who supports private gun ownership is “pro-Second-Amendment” because “people should be safe,” you don’t understand reality, and you don’t understand the Second Amendment.
Reality check: The purpose of the Second Amendment was NOT to give safety to individual citizens against criminals. That has never been the point, and has never even crossed the mind of the Framers to establish that as a special right. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to DENY SAFETY TO GOVERNMENT AGENTS against individual citizens, when those government agents cross the line.
Thus, when a sheriff says you should have a gun to defend yourself against criminals, he is still not “pro-Second Amendment.” He will be “pro-Second-Amendment” only when he says that YOU SHOULD HAVE A GUN TO SHOOT COPS WHEN THEY BREAK THE LAW. This was the specific purpose of the Second Amendment, and if a Sheriff doesn’t say it explicitly, he is NOT “pro-Second-Amendment.”
So be wise and informed, and don’t fall for statist propaganda, even if it comes from your local beloved Sheriff.
This Guy Makes A Lot of Good Arguments
The following is taken from page 127 of “Government Indicted” by Marc Stevens.
“But taxes are the life-blood of government, and their prompt and certain availability an imperious need.” Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247; 55 S. Ct. 695; 79 L. Ed. 1421 (1935).
This idea is constantly reinforced. You’ll get notices from tax agencies about all the good things done with taxes, e.g., infrastructure, social security, aid to Israel, tsunami relief, etc. You then have two political parties relentlessly arguing about what the booty should be used for: conservatives argue the booty should go to law enforcement and the military, and liberals argue it should be for welfare and other social programs.
We fall for this and start arguing with one of the sides, even campaigning for the lesser of the two evils so the booty will be spent wisely. We also vote, which again reinforces the bond caused by the trauma of being controlled, manipulated, lied to, threatened and robbed. It reinforces the idea that we are somehow connected to the abusers; after all, we voted for the president and congress.
Let’s compare this frank admission from John Marshall, a supreme
court attorney and famous Mason, to the Bull quote above:
“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy;”
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316, 4 L.Ed. 579
(1819).“But taxes are the life-blood of government, and their prompt
and certain availability an imperious need.” Bull v. United
States, 295 U.S. 247, 259; 55 S. Ct. 695; 79 L. Ed. 1421 (1935).
Let me get this straight: the “life-blood of government” is the “power
to destroy.” Nice admission; always good to see the occasional honesty from a gang of madmen.
A Possible Conversation
In yesterday’s post, I showed that the only valid government is a government that acknowledges Jesus Christ as Lord and submits to His law. Here’s a possible conversation with a bureacrat along those lines.
Me: Why do your laws apply to me?
Bureaucrat: Well, maybe I can find the statute here, give me a second.
Me: That’s circular. The law can’t apply just because the law says it applies. That isn’t a valid answer.
Bureaucrat: I’m sorry that’s just the way it is.
Me: I agree that’s the way it is, though I certainly don’t like it. You are willing to kill me or lock me up to get your way. However, might does not make right.
Bureaucrat: You get a lot of benefits from government.
Me: Yes, I get some I like and a lot I don’t like, but I don’t agree that it’s acceptable for you to provide those benefits by holding a gun to my head and forcing me to pay for them. That is stealing. It’s not acceptable for government to protect my rights by taking away my rights.
Bureaucrat: Then maybe you should consider moving to Somalia.
Me: I assure you there are government thiefs there as well. My continued residency here doesn’t make your theft any less sinful. Your theft is between you and the Lord, and you won’t stand before Him and be judged by Colorado law. You’ll be judged by His law.
Bureaucrat: Well, uh…
Me: I will let you off the hook, and tell you the only possible reason why government laws might be valid and apply. The only possible reason is that the Bible defines the proper role for government and says that people ought to obey proper government.
Bureaucrat: Great, there you go. Now your amount due is nine hundred and…
Me: Whoa! I said, the Bible says that people ought to obey PROPER government–biblical government. Do you think Colorado is a biblical government?
Bureaucrat: Yes, we do a lot of good things. We give poor people money, we educate children, we protect wildlife, and build roads just to name a few.
Me: But are those things biblical? Is that the role God has given government? I assure you that none of those things are on the list. It is unconstitutional for the government to even consider doing what the Bible says. They have long since rejected Jesus as Lord.
Bureaucrat: True. This isn’t a Christian country.
Me: Exactly. Exactly! Maybe it was at one point, but it certainly isn’t anymore. Therefore, it is the government that has rejected the only valid reason why the laws it makes might apply to me. All that’s left is rule by force. And since you’re holding that gun to my head, I’ll pay the amount due. But do you see that just as in every other area of life, government must choose between Jesus Christ and absurdity. Jesus said in Matthew 12:30, “If you’re not with me, you’re against me.” You’re working for those who have not only not chosen to be with Christ, but have openly rejected Christ.
Bureaucrat: That’s it sir. I’m calling the sheriff.
Me: Yes, the guys with the guns who are willing to kill me. You’re only doubling down on your rejection of Christ, and your worship of the beast. I pray that you’ll think about what we’ve talked about.
Hopefully, that is a conversation I will get to have at some point, and reinforce to people that we must choose Christ or absurdity.
What Is a Valid Government?
For argument sake, let’s propose the following. I have passed a new law saying:
- I am the government.
- I can drive whatever speed I like.
If a cop pulls me over for speeding, I will pull out my law book and quote to him, “I can drive whatever speed I like.” Of course, he’d have a good chuckle and write me a ticket. He has a gun, and just as importantly, the willingness to kill me.
The knee jerk reaction of 99.9% of people reading that would say my government is not valid. But why? Why is the state of Colorado law valid, and my government and law invalid?
Isn’t making up a new government exactly what the state of Colorado (or whatever government at whatever level) has done? A group of guys got together and said, “We are the new government.”
Then, they say something like, “Let’s write a consitution! The constitution will define our territory and we’ll make up out of thin air a process for new laws to be passed. Somewhere in the law or the constitution, we’re going to have to say that we have the right to apply our laws to the people within our boundaries. If someone comes along and asks whether we have the right to do this, we’re going to be able to quote to them from our laws saying that we do have the right.”
So, they’d say the law applies, because the law says it applies. This is circular reasoning, and isn’t a valid answer. If I said Islam is true because the Quran says so, you’d say that’s circular, and you’d be right to reject my answer.
I’ll put forth a few devil’s advocate answers to the question about why the government of Colorado laws might be valid.
The laws of the government of Colorado are valid because:
- They control the territory defined as Colorado.
- The government has been in existence in its current form since 1876.
- Anyone who enters the territory of Colorado agrees to abide by the law or face the consequences.
- Government agents have guns and are more than willing to use them. They rule by force.
- The Bible says we should obey the civil magistrates (Romans 13:1-7).
Numbers 1 and 4 are really the same. Forcing or threatening people doesn’t really make laws or a government valid, though it can be very effective.
Number 2 is not really a valid answer. It’s possible that the government has been invalid since its inception, or it has become invalid at some point. So, 1, 2 and 4 aren’t good answers.
Number 3 is a little bit more interesting. At least it adds a layer for us to peel away. There are people in Colorado who don’t agree to submit to the laws of Colorado. (If none of the other five million, there is at least me.) Why does the law apply to those who don’t agree to submit to Colorado law? And you’re back to the original question. Answer number 3 is just fluff.
Number 5 is really the only answer that would come close to being a good answer. However, if you’re going to claim number 5, you’d have to see whether the government qualifies as being valid by the standard of Scripture. I’ll tell you that it fails miserably.
This answer leads to a conundrum for government, because they explicitly reject that they might rule by biblical standards. They have rejected the Bible and Christianity as possible sources of guidance for government. THEY have rejected the only possible reason for their validity.
The only valid government is one that enforces God’s law as prescribed in God’s law. If they rule by God’s law, then they have God’s blessing in forcing people to do certain very limited things.
While I may not have covered every possible response to the question of why the government of Colorado is valid, I assure you there are no valid answers other than the biblical answer.
My made-up government, consisting of one citizen, is more valid than the state of Colorado, assuming I adopt God’s laws. They have no God-given or moral authority. All they have is the threat of force.
Oh, good news, I just made my wife and kids citizens as well, so now my government has 5 citizens. Care to join me? You might want to check out what God’s law says, but it is beautiful.
Statistical Refutation of The Few Bad Apples Argument
Cop-worshipers often acknowledge that there are a few bad cops, just like there are a few bad doctors, construction workers, car salesmen, barbers, etc. I’ve never thought to ask what percentage they would admit are bad apples, but I’m going to guess they’d admit 1% of cops are bad.
That would mean that potentially 1% of citizen contacts could be bad. But even then, it’s not like that 1 cop in 100 goes through his day having only bad interactions. A bad cop can give a lot of unjust, illegal orders, and if people just do what he says, he gets his power trip, and nothing ever comes of that interaction. I would guess that happens a lot, and a bad cop could go a long time without really running into someone that causes him to flip out and show his true colors.
Let’s say a bad cop has one bad interaction every 2 years, meaning a lawsuit against him is filed or he gets some sort of reprimand in his file. Let’s say the average cop has 2 citizen contacts per day (to be conservative). There are 250 working days per year (52 weeks per year minus two weeks vacation). That would be 250 x 2 interactions per year, or 500. We’re assuming he can go two years without an incident, which would be 1 incident every 1000 contacts (as an estimate).
Working as a pair, it would only be 1 in 10,000 pairs of cops that are bad (.01²). Let’s assume a pair of cops still averages 2 citizen contacts per day. Out of these 10,000 pairs of cops, there is one bad pair. These 10,000 pairs have 2 contacts per day and work 250 days per year. They’re having 5 million contacts per year. And the bad pair still has an incident once every 2 years. So that means, 1 in 10 million contacts with bad pairs would have an issue arise.
This video says there are 53 million citizen contacts per year in this country. That means there ought to be about 5.3 issues per year with bad pairs of cops.
I realize I’ve made a lot of estimates and assumptions, but the problem is that I’ve posted many, many videos on this blog of bad pairs of cops, bad trios and more. Here are a couple more.
This guy was just videotaping, and 3 cops beat him, pepper sprayed him and tried to smash his phone. He’s suing them, and named them in the lawsuit. The odds of having 3 bad cops teamed up would be 1 in a million (.01³). That’s not even considering all the other cops that were present who didn’t lift a finger.
The guy in the video below was clearly not being confrontational, yet ended up having to be taken to the hospital, because a psycho nutjob cop came along. If this one guy was in the bottom 1% of cops and all the rest are good, why didn’t they stop this guy from abusing the citizen? There were at least two additional cops that showed up while the bad cop was abusing this guy. Not only that, but the Arlington PD said the force was justified in this case. Did you read that? Higher-up cops said the psycho nutjob did nothing wrong. Clearly, believing only 1% of cops are bad apples is preposterous.
Let’s say 2 higher-up cops reviewed this incident, and said the cop behaved the way a cop ought to behave. What are the odds that a psycho nutjob like this is cleared of any wrongdoing? Let’s say it’s 25% of the time. (75% of such incidents lead to consequences) That would mean that 63% of cops are also psycho nutjobs (.63³ = .25). 63% of cops being bad apples isn’t a few bad apples.
Even if you wanted to say that the odds of this psycho nutjob’s behavior being approved is 1%. (That is you think 99% of cops behaving like this guy face consequences, and I’d say you’re in lala land). You’re still saying that 22% of cops are bad. One out of five isn’t just a few bad apples. (Verify this for yourself by punching this into your calculator: .22 x .22 x .22. You’ll get about 1%.)
And I’ve shown an incident in the past where 50 or so cops abused people, and such incidents happened repeatedly in that era, and are still common today in different contexts. At that point, you’d have to admit that either the vast majority are bad, or there is some psychological thing that causes decent people to behave badly in big groups or that the whole system is broken. I don’t really care what the answer is, but it’s just clear to me that we should abolish the police.
This Is Awesome!
I have a new hero: Alejandro Natividad.
He was a passenger in a car where the driver was pulled over. He did nothing wrong and stood up for himself. He was arrested and later released with no charges.
At 2:35 he says, “The Lord rebuke you.” All cops and all government officials from top to bottom need to hear that!
A Good Ancap Argument
Yesterday, I gave my thoughts on anarcho-capitalism. My purpose
was to get to this post and discuss at least one ancap’s approach
to battle the growing tyranny we face. I think there is a lot of
truth in what he says about unjust government, like the one we
have.
His argument is something I’ve never heard before. He has used
this argument to get people out of traffic tickets and tax bills.
He asks why the law applies to him. They’ll say because the law
says it does. Of course, that is a circular argument, and is
therefore a non-answer. Judges, IRS agents, lawyers with their
juris doctorate can’t answer the question.
I can answer the question of why just laws apply. There is no
answer for why unjust laws apply. The only reason why anyone
complies with unjust laws is because we will suffer violence at
the hand of government. The only rule for unbiblical, unjust
government, which has rejected God’s law, is might makes right.
The reason why just laws apply is because we are created in God’s
image, and His law is the definition of justice. Of course, we’ve
rejected that in this country. No self-respecting judge could
utter such a thing in an American court room. So, this argument is
very effective, and plays into the wheelhouse of this website. It
is presuppositional and theonomic. Choose Christ or choose
absurdity.
Anarcho-Capitalists are Cool. Theonomists are More Cool.
Anarcho-capitalists believe there should be no government. I don’t know of any Christian anarcho-capitalists, but that certainly doesn’t mean there aren’t any. I’m very sympathetic to the anarcho-capitalists, and they make a lot of good points. An atheist anarcho-capitalist is much closer to espousing a biblical society than the typical American neo-conservative evangelical.
On a scale of government intrusion, 100 being an all-powerful dictator and totalitarian, and 0 being no government (anarcho-capitalism), I’d put the USSR at 90. They may have aspired to 100, but humans will always have limited resources to achieve our aspirations. I’d put the Democrat party at 55. I’d put the Republican party at 30, and the civil law of the Old Testament at 5. By my estimation, the difference between Republicans (most Christians) and the Bible is greater than the difference between anarcho-capitalism and the Bible.
One of the points that ancaps make is that it is immoral for anyone, including government, to force you to pay them. I wholeheartedly agree. There is no civil penalty for not paying taxes in God’s law. I think the Bible teaches that you ought to pay just taxes, but whether you pay or not is between you and the Lord.
However, where ancaps go wrong is that they take the principle that no one ought to force anyone to do anything out of thin air. This is a belief they take on blind faith. It is a biblical belief, but the non-Christian ancaps reject the only valid source for moral oughts. This is a huge problem as there is no foundation for their system.
The Bible gives very specific instructions to civil magistrates. Their ONLY job is to punish evildoers (Romans 13:1-7). They don’t get to build roads, protect wildlife, give people handouts or make up whatever laws they want. The only standard for good and evil is God’s law, and the only job of government is to enforce God’s law.
Therefore, maximum liberty isn’t zero government, but biblical government.
The last criticism I have of ancaps is that there has never been a successful society built on anarchy. When there is no biblical government, a tyrant will take over.
I don’t want to end on a criticism, so the last thing I’ll point out is that as I’ve listened to some ancaps, they’ve discussed love in society. I’ve never heard Republicans or Rush Limbaugh talk about love. Christians talk about love a lot, but I’ve never heard them talk about love in politics or society. I’ve only ever heard about it listening to non-Christian ancaps. Shaggy hippies seem to have co-opted and redefined peace and love, but those are concepts for which Christians should be striving.