Dec 11, 2022·edited Dec 11, 2022Liked by Clayton Craddock
Just for the sake of being argumentative here, which is my nature anyway, I will posit that 'disobedience' in itself is a misleading nomenclature which casts the entire topic in the wrong light. For my own purposes, I am not disposed to 'obey' anyone or anything, especially the law and certainly the machinations of governments.
I decide for myself, on each and every occasion, which action or inaction on my part best represents my own better interests, and least harms or compromises those of my neighbors.
Government being the least neighborly institution ever devised, its attempts at requiring things of me and disguising its random edicts as being 'lawful' are an entirely moot point for my purposes; it is a thoroughly reliable given that government itself does not regard itself as being liable before any law, unless and only until any party aggrieved by government's behavior can compel it into a court of law (the only form of government in which law even theoretically applies to government, and then only on a case-by-case basis), and can afford to sustain a battle of lawyers in order to prevail (the least likely outcome of such a course of action.}
I have never restrained myself from robbing, raping and embezzling only because these things are 'against the law.' I do not do these things because they are wrong, because they harm others for no defensible reason, and least of all because there could be 'legal' consequences to me for doing them.
If I had to rely on laws and governments to tell me right from wrong, I would not consider myself a very worthy neighbor.
Being a good neighbor to my fellow humans is the only 'law' I ever regarded as worth obeying, but governments traffic in an entirely different concept of laws, primarily those which best serve and preserve their interests at the expense of their neighbors'. I was not put on this earth to assist governments in sustaining their powers, and so this 'civil disobedience' comes from a way of looking at the very existence of governments which I am incapable of accepting as valid.
I will even go a step further in positing that the entire self-concept of the 'law-abiding citizen' is a luxury and a privilege based on some form and degree of arranged protection (such as socioeconomic status or well-placed connections) from being targeted by government. Nobody 'obeys' every law, and those who claim they do are simply lying, even if only to themselves.
Along with the odious term 'taxpayer' which I decline either to be or define myself as, this superstition of being a 'law-abiding citizen' bespeaks a belief that one's rights are leased from government, on condition of compliance with it.
My rights are birthrights, they belong to me, they are not conditional on the approval of governments or even laws, and I will defend them to my last breath irrespective of what form of government is seeking to rent them to me on its terms.
Just for the sake of being argumentative here, which is my nature anyway, I will posit that 'disobedience' in itself is a misleading nomenclature which casts the entire topic in the wrong light. For my own purposes, I am not disposed to 'obey' anyone or anything, especially the law and certainly the machinations of governments.
I decide for myself, on each and every occasion, which action or inaction on my part best represents my own better interests, and least harms or compromises those of my neighbors.
Government being the least neighborly institution ever devised, its attempts at requiring things of me and disguising its random edicts as being 'lawful' are an entirely moot point for my purposes; it is a thoroughly reliable given that government itself does not regard itself as being liable before any law, unless and only until any party aggrieved by government's behavior can compel it into a court of law (the only form of government in which law even theoretically applies to government, and then only on a case-by-case basis), and can afford to sustain a battle of lawyers in order to prevail (the least likely outcome of such a course of action.}
I have never restrained myself from robbing, raping and embezzling only because these things are 'against the law.' I do not do these things because they are wrong, because they harm others for no defensible reason, and least of all because there could be 'legal' consequences to me for doing them.
If I had to rely on laws and governments to tell me right from wrong, I would not consider myself a very worthy neighbor.
Being a good neighbor to my fellow humans is the only 'law' I ever regarded as worth obeying, but governments traffic in an entirely different concept of laws, primarily those which best serve and preserve their interests at the expense of their neighbors'. I was not put on this earth to assist governments in sustaining their powers, and so this 'civil disobedience' comes from a way of looking at the very existence of governments which I am incapable of accepting as valid.
I will even go a step further in positing that the entire self-concept of the 'law-abiding citizen' is a luxury and a privilege based on some form and degree of arranged protection (such as socioeconomic status or well-placed connections) from being targeted by government. Nobody 'obeys' every law, and those who claim they do are simply lying, even if only to themselves.
Along with the odious term 'taxpayer' which I decline either to be or define myself as, this superstition of being a 'law-abiding citizen' bespeaks a belief that one's rights are leased from government, on condition of compliance with it.
My rights are birthrights, they belong to me, they are not conditional on the approval of governments or even laws, and I will defend them to my last breath irrespective of what form of government is seeking to rent them to me on its terms.