Presently, a significant portion of American citizens lack a profound understanding of their inherent rights, relying naively on a corrupt government to interpret and safeguard these rights against tyranny. This misplaced trust has proven detrimental, placing excessive power in the hands of the corrupt and jeopardizing the rights of future generations. Many Americans are unable to defend their rights, as they are entangled in propaganda, confusing the distinction between rights and privileges. Depriving the innocent of their rights can take various forms, and failure to pass down crucial wisdom by leading by example on when to bear arms for self-defense against a tyrannical government deprives future generations of a vital frame of reference for appropriate action.
To safeguard the rights of future generations, it is imperative to establish a reliable framework for holding the police accountable for violating the rights of the innocent in the streets. History demonstrates that taking legal action against the police often shields them from justice. Consequently, the key to genuinely serving justice in cases where law enforcement breaches their oath lies in organized efforts and a clear understanding of when it is justifiable to hold them accountable directly in the streets.
This raises a crucial question: When citizens possess a thorough understanding of their rights, know when it is justifiable to defend those rights in the streets, and have the confidence and training to do so competently, why does the government require access to my funds without consent to finance armed enforcers compelling the innocent to adhere to legislation that leads them into absolute despotism? Even a fool can recognize that such armed enforcement is a blatant violation of our rights, and therefore, we are justified in calling for the defunding of such.
In the face of victimization, defending ourselves is a natural instinct, prompting us to question why self-defense becomes questionable when confronted by a police officer. The unknown extent of an officer's actions and the systemic failure to hold them accountable raise concerns. Are we not innocent until proven guilty? Entrusting justice to an organization that shields police from responsibility is unwise. The police, once protectors, now perpetuate tyranny. Defunding them is essential, redirecting resources away from oppression and challenging the notion that violating rights is justified in the name of democracy. Or in the words of Jean-Jacques Rousseau
“A people, says Grotius, can give itself to a king. Then, according to Grotius, a people is a people before it gives itself. The gift is itself a civil act, and implies public deliberation. It would be better, before examining the act by which a people gives itself to a king, to examine that by which it has become a people; for this act, being necessarily prior to the other, is the true foundation of society.
Indeed, if there were no prior convention, where, unless the election were unanimous, would be the obligation on the minority to submit to the choice of the majority? How have a hundred men who wish for a master the right to vote on behalf of ten who do not? The law of majority voting is itself something established by convention, and presupposes unanimity, on one occasion at least.” Excerpts From The Social Contract.
In conclusion, justifying the defunding of the police is evident. They compel the innocent to obey legislation contrary to our best interests. We are fully capable of discerning when to defend our rights against tyranny in the moment. And leading by example establishes a proper frame of reference for future generations to bear arms in the defense of their rights. Remember together we are strong!
Comentarios