"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Obedience or Support: Adult, Child, or Slave

In the essay Personal Responsibility under Dictatorship, by Hannah Arendt (found in her book Responsibility and Judgment), Arendt states:

The only domain where the word [obedience] could possibly apply to adults who are not slaves is the domain of religion, in which people say that they obey the word or command of God because the relationship between God and men can rightly be seen in terms similar to the relation between adult and child.

Arendt was discussing the difference between "obeying" and "supporting" a person, idea, principle, or law in a political and moral context. To obey is to suggest you are a slave (or a child). To support is to say that you agree and go along with whatever it is that is being asked or demanded of you.

Therefore, to obey a law that violated the rights of others, when you are neither a slave or a child, means that you must support that law . . . or you have lost the ability to think logically, along with your moral compass.

With that in mind, do you obey, that is, support the anti-drug-use laws where the imbibing of a narcotic drug (alcohol) is seen a socially acceptable and legal, but the inhaling of the smoke of a marijuana cigarette is seen as criminal and morally wrong. The use of alcohol or marijuana (among other drugs) does not, in and of itself, violate the rights of others. Yet the rights of a marijuana smoker can be violated by his or her arrest, confiscation of property, and loss of care of his or her children, as well as imprisonment; all for not violating the rights of others.

The government is not God. It is supposed to be a secular organization dedicated to the protection of rights and not the purveyor of correct moral standards where no one's rights are being violated by other private citizens. The war on drugs, the anti-drug-use laws are the greatest quasi-religious violation of the rights of all adult citizens of the United States in the history of this once great nation. And the majority of those citizens support this violation of rights.

No comments: