"Do not punish the masses for the sins of the
few"
This
applies to any and all rights and privileges stated in the Constitution of the
For example “The Right to Bear and Keep Arms”. The
Second Amendment to the Constitution of the
Nowhere
does the Constitution give the President or the Congress the power to
federalize state crimes or enact gun control legislation -- not even in a
national emergency. One reads the Constitution in vain for such a delegation of
authority by "We, the People" through the several states. Very
instructive on this point are the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were
written by Thomas Jefferson.
The federal government in 1798
enacted a law making it illegal to criticize a federal official (the Sedition
Act).
These are among the arguments
that Jefferson made in the
...whensoever’s the general
government assumes un-delegated powers, its acts are un-authoritative, void,
and of no force: ...that the government created by this compact was not made
the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to
itself;...each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of
infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
Jefferson went on to spell out that the only powers to punish crime delegated
to the federal government were 1) treason, 2) counterfeiting the securities and
current coin of the United States, 3) piracies and 4) offenses against the law
of nations. In this context,
Anyone
who has observed children will recognize that, ironically, they often
demonstrate a more stringent and uncompromising sense of justice than the
adults around them. A small child who must divide a piece of cake, for example,
will be excruciatingly precise in cutting it lest the "chooser" glom
on to a larger slice. Whether the issue is whose turn it is to clear the
dishes, take out the trash, or who broke that lamp, young people appeal to an
almost innate sense of propriety in demanding they be treated fairly and
equitably.
This
tendency to rigor is perhaps even more evident when parents must mete out
punishments and rewards. To be falsely penalized for something they did not do
will stir up the loudest and shrillest of complaints among the innocent
offspring.
Too
many adults, unfortunately, mildly, meekly, and silently accept such
collectivist justice when dealing with social and political issues.
The
essence of a moral view of justice entails a recognition that only individuals
can be held accountable for the right and wrong they do. Because each of us
possesses free will and, thus, the capacity to make choices among alternatives,
when we act upon our best (or sometimes worst) judgment, we and we alone are who
should reap the benefits of selecting wisely and appropriately...and we and we
alone should be the ones to suffer the negative consequences of picking
hastily, foolishly, or ignorantly.
If
good and evil are to mean anything, our moral autonomy as beings with the
capacity for rational behavior must be acknowledged and accepted. Any other
basis for determining who is responsible for destructive or constructive
outcomes leads to the kind of schizophrenic legal and political realm nipping
at our heels today.
This
individualistic conception of justice did not always hold sway. Indeed,
collectivistic guilt has a long history. In Christian theology, we are all
guilty of sin because of the behavior of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
Throughout the past, whole families -- sometimes entire cities -- were held
responsible for what fathers or kings might have done. The average citizen of
ancient
Our
Founding Fathers recognized the inherent injustice in accepting the doctrine of
collective guilt, i.e., visiting unto the sons the sins of the father. Article
III of the Constitution says that "no Attainder of Treason shall work
Corruption of Blood." In other words, the family of a traitor cannot be
punished simply because the members are related to the perpetrator.
The
bulk of the legal code under which we labor today, however, is rife with
violations of this principle. The general collectivization of our culture in
the Twentieth Century permeates every crack and crevice of our relationship
with the law. Incoherently, our politicians hold individual citizens blameless
for many of the negative conditions in their lives (e.g., being poor, homeless,
addicted to drugs, sexual promiscuous, or abysmally ignorant) while pointing a
narrow finger at us all. "Society" does not provide enough resources
(i.e., money) or understanding or opportunities.
But
"society" is only an abstraction, a way of describing the
relationships, the actions, the beliefs of individuals. Despite what every
dictator or tyrant or statist has proclaimed, society as a separate entity does
not literally exist apart from and above the separate and distinct individuals
who comprise it. Just as the ideas of "right" and "left"
have no meaning when divorced from the people involved, so too,
"society" loses its coherence when reified (and too often, deified).
In
addition to supplying a (poor) rationale for the plethora of social programs
dragging us down -- from Social Security and Medicare to business subsidies and
disaster relief -- the notion of collective responsibility, obligation, or
guilt obliterates proper understanding and application of justice and equity by
punishing the innocent majority for the transgressions of the criminal few.
Most
regulations, laws, and prohibitions are propounded by pointing out that certain
abuses have occurred in the past. Thus, because certain people have engaged in
improper behavior, everyone must be presumed to be a potential criminal and
have his choices and actions inspected, constrained, or curtailed. Such legal
machinations act as a kind of prior restraint. They sanction the notion that
the agents of the government must, in essence, punish citizens -- for potential
improprieties -- beforehand by means of dictates, fees, or restrictions on what
they do and/or how they do it.
But
an implicit assumption of guilt -- before you have even acted -- violates the
constitutionally recognized principle that you can only be punished after you
have actually done something wrong. Even then, the legal system must assume the
innocence of the accused. The courts must prove you are guilty. To make you
prove you are innocent -- as most regulations on business and individuals do --
is rank injustice. To add insult to the injury, many of the laws strangling us
today are based on some group's notion of morality regardless of whether or not
you have actually violated anyone's rights (for example, with consensual
"crimes" such as prostitution, drug use, and gambling).
Affirmative
action policies punish those who were never racist for the sins of those long
dead, an indirect "corruption of blood." Business regulations assume
that only state scrutiny prevents all entrepreneurs from being polluters,
swindlers, and cheaters. Sexual harassment and anti-discrimination laws
(whether for sex, race, ethnic background, age, or disability) squeeze us all
into narrow-minded compartments of barely suppressed bigotry held in check only
by the good graces of the bureaucrats.
Tens
of thousands of gun (i.e., people) control laws treat peaceful,
rights-respecting individuals as criminals held at bay only because they must
jump through arbitrary, unconstitutional hoops that disarm and endanger
millions while leaving the field unchallenged to the
rapists, robbers, and burglars.
The "rule
of law" has morphed into the "rule of men." Politicians,
regulators, and law enforcement agents see us today as blank, faceless, and
interchangeable segments of whatever particular group they have focused upon.
No longer are we treated as distinct individuals. Instead we are lumped
together, punished for no sin of our own, treated not as innocent individuals,
but as untrustworthy villains-by-proxy.
The Constitution has been turned
on its head. Instead of the individual at the pinnacle of the pyramid, today he
is crushed by the weight of the masses who take precedence in their anonymity
over his unique and individual life and personality. Instead of the individual
being able to do anything not prohibited and the state only that which is
permitted, in modern society, the abstract (and literally nonexistent) state
has virtually carte blanche to chase after every whim. The true, fundamental
component of our culture -- a single, real, breathing person -- is bound and
chained, able to choose only from a narrower and narrower range of what is
allowed him as a privilege, not a right.
As mentioned, the very notion of
"rights" has itself been both bloated and choked. On the one hand, "rights"
to health care, housing, food, education and on and on are manufactured out of
thin air. On the other hand, property rights -- the foundation for implementing
the right to your own existence -- is suppressed by the rampant moral inflation
of bogus rights. Coupled with both malign neglect and direct attacks upon
property, we drift without legal anchor or direction.
To restore freedom, we must
reclaim the moral initiative. We must re-consecrate respect for justice as a
trait of the individual, not the collective. We must hold as sacrosanct our
right to earn and hold property, to direct its use, and to wield it as a shield
against malefactors. We must proclaim our right as free, autonomous, and
sovereign individuals to do what we want, say what we will, and build our lives
without the permission, sanction, or approval of any group. As long as we
respect the same rights of all others, we should and must never be punished for
the transgressions of the few.
Compiled by YJ Draiman
