Persuasion or Coercion

(A question of principles.)

By Claude Dunn Senior Instructor of IOTC ©

             As our Nation faces ever-increasing challenging events in the political arena, it appears that there is a great difference of opinion of the proper role of government. Some quite sincerely believe the function of government is to improve the overall quality of life by providing what is generally referred to as essential services (which can be anything from health care to welfare, from education to zoning restrictions, etc.). I suppose their definition of the purpose of government is to manage our lives and our property in such a way as to ensure some type of utopian lifestyle by restrictions and redistributing the wealth, as only big government knows how to do. While government today may be involved in many good endeavors, the question we must ask ourselves are these activities morally within the proper role of government?   

            Perhaps before we go too far into this ideology, we should examine the American understanding of government and try to comprehend what it is, before we can determine how and for what purpose it should be used. George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!” Is that true? Well, whatever government does it does by the force of law; so yes it would appear to be true that government is force. The next question we may ask ourselves is “when is it right to use force?” The answer to this query is the key to our discernment as to the proper role or purpose of government.

            When do we have the right to use force on our equals? Most would agree that it is not until someone has or is in the process of harming us or our property. We all have the right to defend ourselves and to prevent our property from being stolen and we would be hard pressed to find any other time that we would be justified in using such force. As an example, you would never feel justified to force your neighbor to paint his house your favorite color. The thought of someone imposing his will on another in this way would be objectionable and repulsive to almost all of us. While there is nothing wrong with courteous persuasion, the choice would always remain with the owner. Our liking the choice has nothing to do with the right of the owner to make his choice without asking the consent or consulting the inclinations of any other man.

            Our Declaration of Independence gives a clear understanding that each man, created equal, has a God-given right to exercise his choice in all matters that do not violate God’s moral law or the equal rights of others, which is the foundation upon which this Nation was founded. Is this not the freedom that our Founders put their “Lives, Fortunes, and [their] sacred Honor” on the line to secure for us? What are we doing when we use the force of law to impose our will on our fellow equal beyond our rightful use of force? Are we not changing law from protecting the rights of the individual to oppressing them? Why have we sent our young soldiers around the world to protect our freedoms only to use that very freedom to oppress our neighbor’s preferences when we disagree with their choices?           

            Recently an article in a local newspaper stated:     

SPOTSY LAWNS AT ISSUE

 March 2, 2010 12:35 am

BY CHELYEN DAVIS

RICHMOND

 —If you live in Spotsylvania and you’re especially slack about mowing the lawn, the county could soon have something to say about it.

The state Senate yesterday approved a bill that adds Spotsylvania County to the list of localities allowed to pass ordinances regarding grass cutting. Stafford County is already one of the counties on the list.

The law would apply to grass or lawn areas that are less than half an acre, and would kick in once the grass is a foot tall or higher. Violations of the ordinance could earn the landowner a civil penalty of up to $100.

The bill was put in by Del. Bobby Orrock, R-Caroline, who said he normally votes against such bills himself, believing them to cross the line between the powers of government and individual rights.

As a rule, Orrock said, “Government doesn’t have any business telling me I’ve got to cut my grass.”

But, he said, Spotsylvania’s supervisors asked him to put in the bill, and so he complied. Orrock said Spotsylvania’s population is growing, and he recognizes that “outward appearances do impact on everyone in the community” and their property values.

His bill passed the House 75-23, and also ran into some opposition in the Senate, where it nearly died before being revived and passed by a 31-8 vote yesterday. Orrock said most of the opponents probably felt the way he did about government intrusion.
“I respect their opinion. I used to be with ‘em,” he said.

Sen. Edd Houck, D-Spotsylvania, said he might have a conflict of interest on the bill “since I don’t keep my grass cut too well.”

The bill inspired some bad puns during the brief Senate discussion yesterday.

“This is a weeds bill. Let’s wade through it,” said Sen. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, introducing Orrock’s bill and a similar bill for Winchester.

“We certainly mowed those bills down today” said Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling after the vote.

            Del. Bobby Orrock had no difficulty understanding that the bill “cross[ed] the line between the powers of government and individual rights” but nevertheless had no problem proposing that the force of law be used to impose the will of the legislature instead of protecting the freedom of the individual to make their own choice. To add insult to injury it appears some of the other legislatures made a joke of violating the rights of the individuals. The sad truth is that all elected officials have taken an oath before God to protect the rights of the individuals; but today most, with complete contempt, violate their oath and give in to the will of the influential or powerful. What we need to realize is that the only reason the many violations of individual God-given rights succeed is because good men do nothing.

            “We the people” need to return to our conservative values as expressed in our Founding charter that states that there is a Creator God and He determines right and wrong, good and evil not man; our right to control our life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness comes from Him, not government and therefore are not rightfully subject to the repeal or restraints of human laws. That the sole objective and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of these rights, and when government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression. That all power for government action comes from the governed and because the people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything, which would be wrong or immoral for them. to use force to do; therefore, those in government are restricted from using the force of law beyond the right of the individual.       

“We as Americans” need to wake up and stand up and be heard against the usurpation and oppression of individual rights. If we do not elect men of Godly character who understand the Constitution then this experiment with “government of the people” to ensure equality, liberty, and justice for all will not be left to our children and grandchildren. We will either have government that manages its idea of a utopia or one that secures our freedom; either ruled by the cohesion of the elite and powerful or guided by God’s moral law; or as Robert Winthrop said, “either by the Bible or the bayonet.” Which philosophy of government WILL YOU choose: our Founding principles of freedom as articulated in our Declaration of Independence or the ideals of the Progressives?

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

When police act as criminals and no one holds them accountable… old ladies get beaten to the ground and contractors bringing help to flood victims get their property seized—by police:

When the same state’s police (Louisiana) partake in actual looting and are caught on tape by media:

• What elected office is responsible for overseeing/bringing these crooked cops to justice?
• Did the cops have any right under the United States Constitution to perform these acts?