How do we fix this fundamental problem?
I was reading a thread on a firearm forum today that was discussing a hypothetical situation and how one could defend themselves while remaining legal. It involved disarming a criminal who had attacked you, and then deciding what to do when they won’t follow your commands (to leave, lie down, etc). Most people commented that it would be prudent to call 911 ASAP. One person made this comment:
In my opinion, a pistol in the hands of a civilian for self defense is for just that, defense, not apprehension. If the guy runs away, then he runs away, call the cops and let them handle it.
Shortly after that, someone else commented about that comment:
Agreed. While I certainly wouldn’t be happy that he got away to menace someone else, the law doesn’t empower me to force his compliance so I’m not going to get myself into a legal quagmire.
Given the litigious world we live in today, I would have to agree 100% with both comments. What bothers me though is part of the second comment.
…the law doesn’t empower me to…
Now in this particular case, the discussion is about using a gun for self defense, but in reality, there are many instances where the same statement could be said. “The law doesn’t empower me to do something,” whatever that something may be. That sentiment - while unfortunately true today, is entirely opposite of one of the key founding principles.
The law - or government - was never meant to empower an individual to do something. In a just form of government, it is the individual who offers empowerment.
The principle in question can be summed up by saying that, “[T]o secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Now I hope you recognize that sentence. It is based on the political and philosophical teachings of John Locke, and was written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. What it means is that individuals can come together and as a group, delegate specific roles or responsibilities to the government. The individual does NOT surrender or forfeit that right, they merely give authority to the government to do it for them. The individual retains the right to do it - whatever it may be - for themselves at any time. This is necessary because the people thereby retain the right to take away authority or empowerment of the government at any time, for any reason.
As a society, we have done this with police services. We have empowered law enforcement with authority to detain and arrest criminals. For government to work properly, we, the people, have to retain the ability to detain and arrest criminals.
We can’t grant that which we don’t have, and for government to work, we can’t give it away, nor will a just government seek to take it.
As a result, while I agree that the statement above is legally right, it is fundamentally wrong, and I think it shows us one of the root causes of the problems we as a nation are facing today. We have gone beyond just delegating tasks to the government and now freely surrender many rights. It could be argued (not by me - I’m just saying it could be) that in past times, the people would completely forfeit a right, and the government would step in to take care of it, because someone has to. Our present-day government has become so used to this arrangement that they now no longer wait for the people to forfeit something, they just unilaterally decide to take those rights. Regardless of how we got here, we have - by definition - an unjust government, and an electorate that for the most part, doesn’t care.
For those who do care, we have a really tough question to answer: How do we fix this problem?