To obey, or not to obey

As a staunch advocate for liberty, agorism and natural law, I am a person who has developed a deep understanding in the laws outlined in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I arrived at a crucial juncture that forced me to make a decision: to obey, or not to obey? I chose the latter, opting instead to follow the moral outlaw path of Agorism and Voluntaryism. Unfortunately, I found that only a minority of individuals share these principles. While the majority have chosen the path of statism, whether it be of the left or right variety (which, in reality, are not very different from one another). But, if one is going to embrace statism, they should at least try to understand and adhere to the fundamental philosophy and purpose upon which it was founded, don’t you think? I find it disheartening that so many people willingly set aside what our country was founded upon and why, ignoring the natural laws and constitutional protections that are supposed to safeguard our individual rights and freedoms. Sadly, paper rights, as highly esteemed as they may be, do not grant us anything; they merely outline the rights that nature has already given us as individuals.

Example of standardized compliance:

Think about this for a second – why would a law enforcement officer need to ask for your Driver’s License at a DUI checkpoint? Do they assume that you don’t have a license to produce, without having any knowledge of that beforehand? If so, what probable cause would give rise to such a suspicion, especially if you haven’t committed any crime? Can they tell whether or not you have a driver’s license just by looking at you? The answer is a resounding no. Any such thought would be an act of guessing.

A “DUI” checkpoint is not a mere “Do you have an ID?” checkpoint, but an interrogation. Such checkpoints resemble those that the Nazis set up in the 1930s and 40s. I call them “Who, what, where, when, why?” checkpoints, for lack of better words. Would you feel comfortable stopping at one with a title like that? More importantly, would any of this be the case if more people asserted their rights at these checkpoints?

These abuses of your rights only happen because you allow them. Do you disagree? Let’s say you support DUI checkpoints and comply to prove that you’re not drunk. Why would you comply with anything outside of what you agree with? It is not a “Do you have an ID or proof of insurance?” checkpoint. Rather, it is a voluntary action that you submit to willingly, consciously or unconsciously. Officials have rules that they must abide by to provide the illusion of legality to their actions, mainly for more than one purpose.

How trustworthy is an oath and can you rely upon it?

Let’s talk about the strength of John Doe’s oath. A John Doe Oath taker is someone who takes an oath without fully adhering to it, while still pridefully claiming to uphold it. If you don’t stand by your oath, your oath might as well have been made anonymously and is unidentified, hence “John Doe.” It’s ironic how the average person who takes “the oath” swears to the words, but for instance simultaneously embraces the concept of divorce. I wonder how many oath takers are divorced? If they track with the rest of the country, probably around half of them are. Yet, one of the only oaths/vows that mentions “till death” in the actual wording is the one people take in marriage (at least those who take traditional vows). If their life partners are expendable, then how can we expect them to have any respect for the Constitution or their oaths of office? We must hold these oath-takers accountable to the promises they make to the people they are supposed to serve.

My suggested solution:

Officials also have limits on what they can do without your consent. Anything you give is only given from your own free will. So, why would you submit to giving any more information than is necessary for the purpose of the interaction? You are making compliance routine by contributing to it. Therefore, you are creating an environment that allows officials to suspect that something is not right if someone asserts their rights. Mindlessly, repeatedly giving information not relevant to the point of the interaction is not helping freedom. This paves the way for incidents where drivers or pedestrians asserting their rights are often beaten, tasered, and/or even killed for not giving absolute compliance to any and all questions or demands. The majority of the time, these demands are not lawful to begin with.

The idea that we must blindly obey authority is a dangerous one. We must always be questioning, always be vigilant, and always be willing to stand up for what is right. Our rights are not to be surrendered to anyone or anything. We must exercise them, and we must defend them.

In the end, it is our duty to be true to ourselves and our principles. We must always remember that our rights are not given to us by the government, but by nature. It is up to us to exercise them, to defend them, and to stand up for what is right. Only then can we truly be free.