Dear Friends,
It seems to me, any government that alienates us from our natural Rights, is by definition… illegitimate. This is provably true for several reasons. The first and most obvious is that a government that alienates us from our God given Rights, must think the people exist to serve the government, in other words, they have reversed the role of government and citizen. Another is that the legitimate role of government is to protect our natural Rights, and any state that thwarts its primary purpose, becomes illegitimate by doing so. Furthermore, government in the West is based on a contractual relationship between the governed and the governors, we call them constitutions. In a normal contract, if one party violates even the tiniest clause, then the contract is null and void for both parties, except apparently, constitutions.
Government exists to serve the citizenry, not the other way around. People would exist, and indeed did exist before government, and we can exist just fine without it. Government, on the other hand, cannot exist in the absence of human beings. Oh, a group of Orangutans is called a congress, but I suspect that mostly alludes to the similarity between a bunch of feces throwing apes, and a body of lawmakers. So it is clear that since people predate government, government then is an expedient created by people, and so cannot exist without people, we can reliably conclude that people are more important than government. Put another way, government is created to serve the people, people are not created to serve government. To think it is different, is to confuse the real with the fabricated, the just with the unjust.
To be legitimate government must protect our natural Rights. This was a settled fact before the progressives, Nazis and Marxists found an intellectual nexus in Habermas. Today we are back to arguing if a penis makes someone a boy or a girl. Rehashing arguments that were settled centuries ago. Turning the ground of settled knowledge to quicksand for the gullible. If we go back to the hard ground of Enlightenment and Christian thought, that protecting the Natural Rights of its citizens is the primary role of government, the state regains legitimacy. If a mechanic refused to fix cars, but instead demanded to run a car company, you would say his rule was illegitimate. Government that refuses to protect our Natural Rights, yet demands to run our lives, is the same thing… Only different in scale.
It would appear that only in contracts called constitutions are one party, government, able to change it at will, since they say what it means, self police and have a monopoly on violence. Since they are in material breach of our constitutions now at all times. Their rule is obviously illegitimate. If you bought a house, then didn’t pay the mortgage, the lender would rightfully take the home and sell it, because you are in material breach of the contract. You wouldn’t have the option of using violence or force to keep it, you can’t change the mortgage contract at will, nor can you self police. Only government can change the rules arbitrarily… or can they? They apparently can, since they do, and we say little or nothing. Further alienating us from our Natural Rights, thus further delegitimizing them.
Today the only credibility most governments have is their monopoly on violence. That is their only claim to legitimacy. Constitutions that are not followed by the governors are no lawful hold on a people. Just as government that violates our natural Rights is confused about the whole reason for government. Plus, governors that don’t do what they are supposed to, while demanding to do things that they are not allowed to, show their lack of wisdom. That is why our illegitimate governors, who know they are in material breach of our Constitution, have an army protecting Washington DC. To protect them against the day we wake up and realize, they are impostors, and evict them from their usurped illegitimate occupation. Until then, maybe we should put them on notice… that we notice.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
