If there is no aggrieved party, there is no law.
On Liberty, Tyranny, and Preventative Regulatory Statutes:
As we move forward in reshaping the future of Freedom in America, we must steadfastly resist the knee jerk reaction to submit to our fears and the whims of “well intentioned” politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists to materialize further legislations which infringe upon our Liberty under the guise of prevention and safety in response to each and every tragedy, crime, poor decision, mistake, crisis, and emergency.
Life happens. Accidents happen. Crime happens.
Piling redundancies atop existing laws do nothing to further prevent unfavorable occurrences.
Our current circumstances highlight this reality that if you allow your government to erode your Liberty, under the guise of safety or any other excuse, in response to a tragedy, crisis, or emergency… Your government will always find – or fabricate – a tragedy, crisis, or emergency to leverage your fears and coerce you into submission and servitude.
Any measure of respect for maintaining our sovereignty, once attained, demands that we, individually and as a society, revive an elevated standard of accountability, responsibility, judgement, and discernment. We must establish as our societal norm the level of personal and interpersonal duty, of which we are not only capable, but until recent generations upon which we had prided ourselves as Americans and as a civilized people.
A jury and judge do not need thousands of detailed additional “preventative” regulatory statutes to determine the intent and guilt of an individual. Either there is an aggrieved party, or there is not. Either a man intended to commit grievance upon the person or property of another, or he did not. Everything in excess serves no purpose beyond providing a governing body the vehicle by which to persecute men for any myriad of excuses under the guise of noble intent.
Are we so negligent as to presume we shall not remain diligent in holding our judges and peer juries accountable to exercise discernment without the need to outline for them in such great depth and detail as to remove any necessary thought process involved in utilizing their own faculties?
Would it be moral or conscionable to perpetuate this system of streamlined, centralized, standardized, universal, conformist, hyper regulated, statutory means of persecution and infringement of both liberty and justice, solely for the purpose of outsourcing our very duty and right to so much as think for ourselves?