It’s a peculiar phenomenon that the American populace has an affinity for an expansive government, with the understanding that the larger it is, the better it’s perceived. In their eyes, no taxation, no encroachment on personal freedom, and certainly no act of aggression or violence perpetrated by their revered government against other nations or peoples is ever met with disapproval. On the contrary, such actions are often enthusiastically endorsed and applauded by this demographic. If, hypothetically, every US citizen were to be replaced by an identical robotic duplicate today, it’s likely that the collective behavior of the original population and their artificial counterparts would be virtually indistinguishable in terms of their obsequiousness, sycophancy, and eagerness to comply, all while chanting the familiar refrain of “Long live the Supreme Leader of the Free World”.
In reality, the US government lacks both moral and legal legitimacy. The fact that they financially support the violence in Gaza strips them of any ethical high ground. Moreover, their claim to authority is baseless, relying solely on the threat of force and coercion. Ultimately, the US government operates more like a transnational criminal organization, using violence and intimidation to impose its will, rather than a legitimate governing body.
At the heart of every nation-state lies a central authority, which is universally recognized as the source of power. This concept of authority is embodied in the idea of “the sovereign.” To understand its significance, we must delve into its historical roots.
In the past, monarchs, who claimed to rule by divine right, held absolute power. This phenomenon was not unique to Christian Europe, but was a common feature of societies that had evolved beyond tribal systems. The parallels between the Divine Right of Kings in Europe and the Mandate of Heaven in China are striking, suggesting that the notion of a singular, God-appointed authority is an inherent aspect of human psychology.
The Enlightenment marked a significant shift, as the concept of “human rights” emerged, giving rise to liberal and republican ideologies. The core idea was that every individual possessed inherent, inalienable rights, rendering them sovereign entities. This philosophical underpinning of individual sovereignty effectively nullified the Divine Right of Kings. As a result, people sought to establish a system of governance based on individual sovereignty, culminating in the creation of the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. The French Revolution soon followed, building on the foundations laid by the American Revolution.
The fundamental principle of republicanism is that citizens enter into a “social contract,” agreeing to respect each other’s rights and enshrining them in law. The government, in turn, serves the people’s will, guided solely by the constitution, which is the product of this collective agreement. Through this process, the people effectively “self-govern,” with the government acting as their representative.
To fully grasp the implications of liberal republicanism, we must delve into both its benefits and drawbacks. While the advantages are readily apparent, the disadvantages took time to emerge and are more nuanced. In my opinion, liberal republicanism is ultimately unsustainable, as it inevitably gives rise to liberal democracy, which in turn descends into tyranny. Furthermore, the fundamental principles of liberalism, such as human rights and social contracts, are too abstract to be effectively translated from theory to practice.
In order to establish that the US government lacks legitimacy and has no legal authority to dictate what citizens can and cannot do, let alone use force against those who disobey, we need only demonstrate that it fails to adhere to the US Constitution. This, in turn, means it has no legitimate claim to sovereignty over the United States. The discussion becomes complicated only because liberal ideals are inherently abstract. If this were not the case, the US government’s illegitimacy would be immediately apparent whenever it blatantly disregards the Constitution.
To illustrate this point, consider a hypothetical scenario in which the Holy Roman Emperor were to officially endorse gay sex as a state policy. Given that his authority stems from the Christian God, such a policy would be a clear violation of divine law, rendering his legitimacy null and void. In this case, the people would not only have the right but also the duty to overthrow him and replace him with a ruler who respects divine authority. This scenario is straightforward because it involves no confusing abstractions, unlike the principles of liberal republicanism.
A Monopoly on Violence
In any society, a single entity must wield the power to enforce violence, as unchecked violence would lead to chaos. This is why the concept of a sovereign with a monopoly on violence is universally accepted.
Historically, under the Divine Right of Kings, the monarch held the exclusive right to mete out capital punishment, as they were deemed to be appointed by God. In contrast, in a Republican system, the collective power of “the people” is considered sovereign, and thus, they theoretically hold the monopoly on violence. This concept is clarified through the social contract theory, which posits that citizens have agreed to be governed by representatives, thereby granting police the authority to use force when necessary.
However, this system is not without its flaws. The jury system, where peers judge accused individuals, has led to controversial verdicts, such as the OJ Simpson trial. Moreover, advances in DNA technology have revealed that numerous individuals were wrongly convicted by juries. While this is not a unique problem to the Republican system, it highlights the challenges of implementing a system where “the people” wield the power of violence.
In retrospect, it is surprising that the concept of “the people” holding a monopoly on violence did not inevitably lead to tyranny. Nevertheless, the Founding Fathers took steps to mitigate this risk by prohibiting standing armies and advocating for well-regulated militias at the state and local level. The Sheriff system, where an elected official and their deputies were the sole authorities empowered to use force, provided a legitimate means of exercising this power. This system ensured that force was only used when necessary to protect lives, and that those accused of crimes were arrested and brought to trial.
According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the Constitution, the US Congress is only authorized to establish a standing army for a maximum of two years, and only for the purposes of defense or responding to emergencies. This provision effectively renders the current permanent US military structure unconstitutional. Moreover, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 explicitly prohibits the use of military forces as a means of domestic law enforcement within the United States.
The existence of federal agencies like the FBI and ATF, as well as state police forces, raises constitutional concerns. By operating as de facto federal police, they blur the lines between the people’s sovereignty and the state’s monopoly on violence, paving the way for tyrannical governance. While some argue that these agencies are justified by the Constitution, their presence undermines the fundamental connection between the people and the power to enforce the law.
Furthermore, it’s questionable whether these organizations are truly necessary for maintaining public safety. In fact, the concentration of violent authority in their hands has led to a surge in violent crime. It’s hard to imagine that our country wouldn’t be safer if law enforcement were entrusted to local sheriffs and militias, rather than these federal and state agencies.
“The Right to Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed”
At its core, the Bill of Rights has been systematically dismantled by the US government, but for the sake of simplicity, let’s focus on the Second Amendment. The phrase “shall not be infringed” is straightforward, yet the government has established restrictions on gun ownership, prohibiting certain individuals, such as felons, drug users, and the mentally ill, from possessing firearms. Moreover, they have banned specific types of arms, including fully-automatic guns.
The case of Hunter Biden, who was convicted of felonies for falsifying information on a federal form required to purchase a gun, highlights the arbitrary nature of these restrictions. The federal government oversteps its authority by demanding individuals fill out forms and dictating who can own guns.
Some might argue that certain groups, like felons and the mentally ill, shouldn’t have access to firearms, citing concerns about public safety. However, this line of reasoning is flawed. The Second Amendment’s unequivocal language means that the state has no legitimate grounds to restrict anyone’s right to purchase and own any type of firearm.
The issue of black crime often arises in these discussions, but it’s a complex topic that can lead to multiple tangents. To simplify the matter, consider two rhetorical questions: Would local law enforcement and militias tolerate the current level of criminal activity among black populations? And when was the last time the FBI conducted a raid in a predominantly black neighborhood to confiscate illegally owned firearms?
The adage “a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun” may have become clichéd, but it remains a fundamental truth.
Regardless of the circumstances, the federal government’s authority to regulate gun purchases is limited. Even in the hypothetical scenario where large groups of people were purchasing fully-automatic rifles and using them to harm others, the Constitution would still protect individuals’ rights. In such a situation, legal remedies would exist to address the issue without infringing upon the rights outlined in the social contract, including the requirement to obtain prior permission or fill out forms before buying a gun.
This is a Tyranny
The gun control debate is just one example of how the Bill of Rights is being disregarded. Similarly, the NSA’s mass surveillance of Americans, secret courts, and the FBI’s censorship of social media content all raise concerns. Add to that the imposition of income and property taxes, the questionable practices of Child Protective Services, and the erosion of “civil rights.” It’s a daunting task to catalog all these infringements, and it’s unclear if it’s even possible.
Proponents of the US government’s legitimacy argue that its authority stems from the people’s vote. However, this claim is problematic, considering the significant influence of special interest groups on elections and the fact that elected representatives often fail to represent the people’s will. Moreover, the electoral process itself has become disconnected from the popular vote.
Even if we were to assume that these representatives genuinely represented the people, they would still be bound by the Constitution and lack the authority to pass laws that violate it. The Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” clause is unequivocal. According to republican theory, natural rights cannot be revoked by popular vote.
Since the US government disregards the Constitution, it lacks the legitimate authority to dictate to its citizens. While it’s possible to analyze how we arrived at this point, the reality remains that the government does not possess sovereignty over the American people. Yet, it wields the power to inflict harm and imprisonment, solely due to its control over a militarized force.
In essence, the US government is not a sovereign entity, and its claim to being a legitimate government is dubious. It more closely resembles a criminal organization that coerces compliance through violence, akin to a mafia syndicate.
Blissful Ignorance
The majority of people remain oblivious to the fact that they’re living in a state of subjugation because they’ve never dared to challenge the authority of the federal government. They conform to the expected norms, paying their taxes, adhering to the approved narrative, and obeying the laws that matter to those in power. They’re distracted by their vices and indulgences, consuming processed food, binge-watching Netflix, and living a life of complacent consumption.
The government has masterfully crafted an illusion of freedom, a subtle yet suffocating trap. It’s only when you defy the system that you realize the true extent of its control. I’ve experienced this firsthand, and I can attest that the notion of freedom in America is nothing more than a myth.
Fortunately, a growing number of people are starting to see through the facade. As the system increasingly encroaches on their basic rights, it’s becoming clear that voting has little impact on policy decisions. While many will remain ignorant of this reality, a significant portion of the population is nearing a breaking point, refusing to tolerate the abuses perpetrated by this corrupt regime.
It’s essential to recognize that any participation in this system serves as a tacit endorsement of its authority. However, it’s also important to acknowledge that, in situations where one is faced with coercion, cooperation may be necessary for survival. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean you must internalize the system’s legitimacy. You can choose not to engage in political discussions that perpetuate the illusion of government accountability, and you certainly don’t have to vote. While they may be able to exert physical control, they cannot force you to surrender your autonomy or moral agency.
God has to be the Sovereign
Reflecting on the Enlightenment and liberalism, one can ponder an America with a monarch at its helm. However, much of the existing discourse on these weighty topics is superficial. In hindsight, I believe liberalism was a misguided endeavor, despite my admiration for the Founding Fathers and their vision for a new system. The transformative impact of technology on society is another crucial aspect to consider. I have long argued that the Enlightenment was an inevitable consequence of the printing press and widespread literacy, which allowed common people to realize that kings and nobles were not inherently superior.
This is a complex and multifaceted discussion, and it’s arrogant to claim a complete understanding of how history could have unfolded differently or what an ideal system should look like. It’s tempting to suggest that a German victory in World War II would have led to a better world, but it’s impossible to predict how a reactionary movement like Fascism would have evolved over time.
A crucial distinction must be made between the Divine Right of Kings, which posited the monarch as God’s earthly representative, and liberalism, which initially declared that individual rights were bestowed by God. Both systems shared a common premise: God as the supreme authority over humanity. It’s evident that modern liberalism has abandoned this concept, replacing God-given natural rights with ambiguous human rights. While it’s true that the Divine Right of Kings couldn’t have degenerated into godlessness like liberalism has, it’s also important to acknowledge that liberalism emerged as a response to the perceived flaws of the Divine Right.
One fundamental truth stands out: humanity can only be governed by God. Any system that doesn’t recognize God as the sole sovereign is doomed to fail. Unless society acknowledges that human beings are sacred, born free, and endowed with a divine spark due to their creation by God, we will inevitably succumb to dehumanization and tyranny.
As we conclude, it is clear the American government lacks moral and legal legitimacy, relying on coercion and force to impose its will. The concept of sovereignty is rooted in the idea of a singular, God-appointed authority, which has evolved from monarchies to liberal republicanism. However, liberal republicanism is unsustainable and inevitably descends into tyranny. The US government fails to adhere to the Constitution, rendering its legitimacy null and void. The social contract theory, which grants police authority to use force, is flawed, and the jury system has led to controversial verdicts. The existence of federal agencies like the FBI and ATF raises constitutional concerns, blurring the lines between the people’s sovereignty and the state’s monopoly on violence. The government’s authority to regulate gun purchases is limited, and its disregard for the Constitution is evident in its mass surveillance, secret courts, and censorship of social media content. Ultimately, the US government resembles a criminal organization that coerces compliance through violence.