“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” – The preamble of the Constitution of the United States
The preamble is the statement that explains the purpose of the federal government of the United States and the purpose of its constitution. Within the body of this document, it legally authorized the federal government of the United States to tax and maintain a monopoly of federal power within the geographic borders of the National State. Additionally it purports to limit the powers of said federal government and protect the rights of individuals. If the federal government that maintains a monopoly of power within the geographic borders of the United States and functions as a National State accomplishes the stated purposes of that preamble, then no sane and honest person living within those borders should have grounds to object to being governed by that National State.
The glaring question then becomes: Is this National State accomplishing its purported purpose as outlined by that preamble, in a competent manner that justifies its continued existence?
The preamble that establishes the constitution and authorizes the existence of the State presents a false dichotomy. Domestic tranquility can only exist where there is justice. Where there is no justice revolution is a guaranteed result at some point. If carefully orchestrated and maintained, false justice can be used to fool the masses into believing justice exists, but this will only work temporarily and will result in a radically more unstable reaction by the masses once the lie is exposed. Therefore domestic tranquility cannot be separated from justice. To say you provide justice and domestic tranquility is like saying you provide water and wet. So then, we begin to see either an incompetent understanding of the subject at hand by the framers of the constitution, or the beginning of the deception of the American public.
Other than cases where mental illness is a factor, humans tend to harm each other under three sets of circumstances, one of which is war and I will not cover that topic at this time. In this article I intend to look at the other two of those sets of circumstances and propose questions as to whether or not the State is accomplishing its claim of “establishing justice”. I will attempt to show that the State has not and cannot establish justice since the State itself is based on injustice and is incapable of establishing or maintaining justice.
1) Accident
An accident, by its very definition, is not planned nor intended. Therefore it’s an injustice to treat an accident the same as an intentional act. When an accident occurs there must be a victim or victims and there must be a responsible party or parties. If a dispute exists over the damages a neutral third party must be involved to judge the facts and determine an equitable settlement in order for justice to take place.
For example, let’s say Bill owns a hot dog stand. Tom shows up one day to buy a hot dog. After having purchased the hot dog, Tom bites into it, hitting a hard object and breaking a tooth. It’s determined that the object was a small rock.
One scenario could be that Bill had stored his big umbrella on the ground overnight and gravel inadvertently got lodged in the fabric. Then Bill was not careful enough when he set up his hot dog stand that day and he allowed gravel to fall into the hot dog chili. So then, due to Bill’s lack of attention Tom has a broken tooth. Assuming there is a dispute, once blame is established a judge would need to determine the extent of the damage and the path of compensation. The value of Tom’s tooth, along with compensation to cover his pain and inconvenience, would need to be determined along with a reasonable way for Bill to pay that compensation. Additionally a determination would need to be made as to who pays for the judging process.
If we change the scenario and we find out gravel fell in the chili at the chili factory because of the factory’s slack standards, both Tom and Bill may have a case against the chili factory owner since Tom’s tooth is damaged and Bill’s business may be damaged.
2) Aggression
An aggression is an intentional act by a person or persons resulting in the violation or damage of the property of other person or persons. In order for justice to take place, damages must be determined and compensated and a punishment must be determined that is suitable to the victim or in case of death, the victim’s heir. And if investigation and/or judgment are needed to resolve any disputes resulting from the aggression, the aggressor must carry the burden of the expenses involved.
Using the example above, if it’s determined that Bill intended to harm Tom by placing gravel in his food, justice cannot be served until Tom is not only compensated for the broken tooth, but also allowed to avenge the assault. If Bill feels Tom’s vengeance and/or compensation is excessive an arbitrator may be employed by Bill to seek a more suitable solution that still satisfies Tom.
If it’s determined that the chili factory owner placed gravel in the chili in order to damage Bill’s hot dog stand business, Tom and Bill have a grievance with the chili factory owner.
Here we can see the difference between an act of negligence and a criminal act of aggression. Negligence resulting in accidental damages should be justly compensated for while criminal acts must be both compensated for and punished.
This would be a good spot in the article to repeat the question: Is this National State accomplishing its purported purpose as outlined by that preamble, in a competent manner that justifies its continued existence? Keep in mind; we have determined that without genuine justice there cannot be an enduring domestic tranquility. And we have established that treating an accident as if it were an act of aggression is in itself an injustice.
During 2010 my wife and I had the great pleasure of taking our motorhome from Ohio to Missouri where we visited my wife’s family. During that trip we passed through Illinois where we observed a barrage of warning signs along the highway threatening, “HIT A WORKER $10,000 FINE 14 YRS JAIL” [sic]
For practical purposes, let’s examine if this version of justice protects highway workers by asking, “Why would a person strike a highway worker with their motor vehicle?” If the answer to that question involves motivations of malice and/or aggression, there may be some logic to displaying such a threat. Malice or aggression would indicate forethought and planning and that would indicate that the individual might weigh the cost of being caught. But it’s ridiculously unlikely that a person would plan an assault or murder by publicly running down a highway worker. And if someone did such a thing, assault and murder are already against the law. Its far more likely that a highway worker is placed by the State, in one of the most dangerous positions a person can find themselves in North America, and they’re expected to do this day after day, mostly during peak traffic hours. Then when a worker is struck by a motor vehicle, it’s almost certain to be a dreadful accident that the motorist would have never chosen to be involved in. I cannot imagine a situation where a motorist is driving along a highway contemplating hitting a road worker but is suddenly deterred by a sign threatening a $10.000 fine along with 14 years imprisonment. The absurdity of this should be blatantly obvious to everyone seeing these signs, but sadly due to generations of brainwashing, it is not obvious and I must point it out.
For comparison to our 14-year sentence for accidentally striking a person who is standing inches out of traffic on a busy highway at rush hour, lets look at some numbers from the federal government.
Average sentences per offence and average time served:
We can see from this data that punishing a motorist with a 14-year sentence for an accident is the opposite of justice. Also the fine of $10,000 is a somewhat silly arbitrary punishment that has no logical connection to the act of accidentally striking someone with a car. It’s not meant as compensation to the victim or the victim’s family; it’s simply an inappropriate method of revenue collection by the State over a tragic accident. A more logical route to justice could be to examine the individual specifics of each case and have a neutral arbitrator work with the victim or the victim’s heirs in determining guilt and compensation, then determining if the driver is competent to continue driving. Part of the guilt determination process would be to discover the reason the worker was inches away from moving traffic. Since the State owns the roads and either employs the worker or contracts the employment of the worker, the State must be at least partly responsible for placing the worker in such a position. However, as the reader well knows, it simply doesn’t work that way. The State owns the highway, designed the highway, places workers in harm’s way, determines the law, judges the driver, determines sentence, doles out the punishment, collects the fine, and charges non-interested third parties and the victim with the taxes to pay for the whole process. So, assuming the victim survives, the victim will actually pay for the incarceration of the motorist. There is no aspect of this process that can rightfully be called justice.
Oh, but wait, you say. You’re cherry picking your argument, you say. Most of the criminal justice system works in America, you say. This is just one oddity, you say.
To this I would counter that you have been deceived and you only see that which the State wants you to see. There is no aspect of the United States Justice System that has the capacity to determine or the ability to hand out justice. It is a system that makes up its own laws, judges its own laws, enforces its own laws, profits from its own laws, and answers only to itself for its own laws, and it does so while extracting its primary funding forcibly from people who are not and have never been accused of a crime.
Let’s drift back to that motorhome trip, cruising down highway I-70, moments before leaving the state of Illinois. My wife was behind the wheel as we motored along and I contemplated how badly the road was maintained, how illogically it was plotted through and around the river crossings at Saint Louis, and what a ridiculous thing it was to still be using highway designs invented in 1930’s Nazi Germany. But just then, my wife snapped me out of my daydream with a warning of a nasty swerve and bump ahead, which caused several objects to go flying around the motorhome, one of which was a DVD of the TV series Breaking Bad. I grabbed the DVD before it could bounce its way into some inconvenient spot, and was instantly reminded again of the absurdity of the 14-year, $10,000 fine for striking a road worker. You see, the warning on the DVD threatened me with a $250,000 fine for coping this TV show. For the simple act of making a copy of a plastic disk coded with 1’s and 0’s, I could be labeled a “pirate” and fined $250,000.
So then, is this National State accomplishing its purported purpose as outlined by that preamble, in a competent manner that justifies its continued existence?
Once again, it is impossible for the State to establish justice because the State can only exist by the use of theft, lies, and aggression. The State has no mechanism to create something it is void of. This can already be seen on the Mexico/US border and it will only get worse. Lawlessness will engulf the cities of the US and Canada, as it is already engulfing the cities of Mexico. Each step the State takes to “get tough” will make the situation worse since the State itself is simply a powerful criminal gang. In time, the Mexican and Canadian governments will capitulate to their crime lords in DC and the fact that there is but One State in North America will become too obvious to even bother denying.
Rather than delivering on its promise of justice and domestic tranquility, the State will use fear as a tactic to divide the masses. The State will emphasize the cultural differences and focus even more of its efforts into convincing people that other people are the problem and only the State can keep them safe. Over and over our fellow man will be demonized as the State desperately tries to paint itself as our Savior. Punishment for the slightest infractions will become more and more harsh as this false god produces false justice.
In the years ahead, before the eyes of most people in North America begin to see the institutionalized tyranny that those in control of governments are pouring out under the guise of law and justice, domestic tranquility will be nothing but a memory. This process will continue until the time comes that people realize that the source of the problem is in their masters who tax them and keep them in fear of their neighbor while maintaining those monopolies of power.
As long as we trust the lies of the State and fear our neighbors more that our masters, the power of the State will grow and the injustices will get worse. Eventually it will be obvious that the State has failed at establishing justice and domestic tranquility will be re-defined to mean a complete police state. Welfare has already been re-defined to mean government rations, and defense now means never ending foreign wars. The blessings of liberty have become permission slips when the State allows us to open an authorized business, grow authorized plants, drive authorized cars to authorized employment, and keep an authorized amount of what we earn.
Ben Stone
2011
For more articles and podcasts on liberty, the zero-aggression principle, and property rights, go to badquaker.com, and thank you for reading.
Click here for the permalink to the original article. An Audio Article is available here as well.
